Democrat Backs Social Security Overhaul

[Rose Siding]

WASHINGTON -- President Bush's call for private accounts within Social Security drew an early expression of bipartisan support Tuesday when Florida Rep. Allen Boyd stepped forward to the disappointment of Democratic leaders.

"There are some of us who are willing to work across party lines" on legislation to repair Social Security's solvency, he said.

"This is the only bipartisan bill that I know of," Boyd added at a news conference where he said he would serve as the chief Democratic supporter of legislation drafted by Republican Rep. Jim Kolbe of Arizona.
........
Many Democrats have long attacked Republicans for trying to privatize Social Security and backing an effort to destroy the government retirement program created during the Great Depression.

Without withdrawing any of their objections, senior Democrats muted their criticism Monday after meeting with the newly re-elected president at the White House. Rather than focusing attention on the private accounts, they said they wanted more information on how much money would be needed to help usher in a new era of personal accounts and how Bush intended to cover the costs.

http://www.newsday.com/news/politics/wire/sns-ap-congress-social-security,0,3754531.story?coll=sns-ap-politics-headlines

[Vincardog]

1. Don't let them manufacture a fake crisis and loot out Social Security fund

[Poppyseedman]

42. loot out Social Security fund

Social Security is already looted, bone dry and a big fat I.O.U.

It's been looted for a long time. Pre - Bush, Clinton, Bush, Reagan, Carter, etc.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

49. Hello!

[Bronco69]

2. **sigh** eom

[aquart]

3. We've been betrayed.

By people with a guaranteed and protected pension.

[dogman]

4. Looks like the DINOs will support the mandate.

Somebody send him the Krugman op-ed and "educate" him.

[NWHarkness]

5. We need to challenge these DINOs in the next primary

[Freddie Stubbs]

48. He represents a conservative district

He will either be replaced with a conservative Democrat or a conservative Republican. Take your pick between someone who will vote with you some of the time or someone who will never vote with you.

[American Tragedy]

53. You may have a point

But how many people in that district do you suppose are really clamoring for privatized Social Security? Opposition to changes in SS is pretty easy to defend even to conservative constituents.

No representative should acquiesce to the Republicans if he or she doesn't absolutely have to.

[jrthin]

6. What the fu@k is wrong

with democratics? These spineless creatures sold out young lives, all in a "willingness to work across party line", and voted for an illegal invasion of another country. Now, again, "to work across party line", they are going to sell out the elderly and the invalids. Is there no dignity and strength in NOT working across party line? FUCK!

[Anakin Skywalker]

14. WTF is wrong???

is that they are all buying into these so-called great theorists who claim to be "liberal" telling them to play nice with Repukes! What's that guy's name, the one who's heavily spoken of lately here at DU, some professor from a big name school?

[Cadence]

55. I know it's sickening isn't it?

[Malva Zebrina]

7. That'll do it for me

sorry--cannot support this ass kissing. ARe there no creative Democrats left? Sorry--I am out of that party and I don't care what happens to this country . There are four years left to totally destroy everything we have known as what American stood for.

Sorry--if they buckle under and promote this egregious attack on their own people, I am out of that party.

It's wrong. It's frivolous and it is happening because thier hero Bush, spent every single penny of it, and is now attempting to fincance it with LOANS. He spent every single bit of it on tax returns to the very rich, who do NOT worry about SS, and on a stupid war.

He broke our bank.

[juajen]

13. There is a simple solution to their dinoism

We need a petition signed by dems pledging to stay home and not vote in future elections if dems do not stand up for democratic concerns. Yes, it will insure that pugs get elected. But, what good are these turncoat dems. I am disgusted and tired of voting for lackluster, turhncoat democrats. Either stand up for the people or we will not vote at all, or, if we have good dems in some areas, only they will vote. After all, the democrats need their base also. I believe, last time I checked, that we are their very loyal, hardworking base.

[rodeodance]

17. ok--what is a DINO? please

[guajira]

19. Democrat In Name Only

Why am I not surprised to find out the DINO is from Florida?? Florida Dems have been pandering to repukes in Miami for years - and that includes Senators Graham and Nelson!!!

[quiet.american]

21. Democrat in Name Only n/t

[mike_c]

22. Democrat In Name Only

eom

[Born Free]

8. Democrats must clean house

these spineless, lying sobs must be replaced, they are too scared to stand up for whats best for America - and they don't deserve to be in office.

[SleeplessinSoCal]

41. Write Pelosi

After reading the Paul Krugman article yesterday and hearing Pete Peterman's assessment of the ramifications of privatized Social Security, it's clear that the effort is really to destroy Social Security and to hell with the consequences.

I'm writing Nancy Pelosi and asking her to go to war on this one. He should be exposed and tossed out of the party if possible.

[Freddie Stubbs]

67. He represents a conservative district

He will either be replaced with a conservative Democrat or a conservative Republican. Take your pick between someone who will vote with you some of the time or someone who will never vote with you.

[Ruffhowse]

9. This is a big test of the Dems for me. If they don't fight this tooth and

nail, I'm outta here and will devote my time and energy to the Green Party. About the only Dem I feel I can count on to tell it like it is and stand up for what's right anymore is Howard Dean. He never gave up during the election and is still fighting the good fight today. Maybe we could get him to switch to the Green Party, that would make the next election interesting.

[juajen]

29. Great idea! I think I could turn green easily, especially for Howard.

I think Dennis might also be susceptible and/or acceptable to the Green Party. I love them both and could easily support them. The dems have got to move me, and soon.

[Child_Of_Isis]

33. Same here.

Dems are skating on fine ice with me.

[Divernan]

10. Democrat Allen Boyd is the new Zell Miller!

Bet he got a helluva lot more than 30 pieces of silver in the form of federal bucks to take back to his district in exchange for this betrayal.

[tsuki]

11. I worked for Boyd, and now he is what...ClubBev Lite.

He'll be hearing from me, and some others.

[AlCzervik]

12. And in other news...Democrats sell what was left of their collective soul

for some magic beans*






*waiting for senate hearing to determine if beans are magic-seller assumes no liability.

[snippy]

15. It is too soon to fight Bush's plan for Social Security.

No one knows any of the details yet so any opposition to such plans just looks like the democrats are fighting Bush just to fight Bush. Many of Bush's supporters, especially younger ones, really like what Bush has said about changing Social Security and will resent democrats opposing it unless the democrats specifically describe the flaws in Bush's plan. But since there are no details, detailed criticism is impossible.

However, Bush, being Bush, has lied repeatedly about his utopian plans for Social Security. When his supporters learn the details many of them are likely to be less enthusiastic than they are now. Democrats need to wait for Bush to come forth with the details before they attack. Whenever the subject of Social Security reform comes up they need to press Bush to come out with the details. They should say that it is impossible for any reasonably intelligent person to agree or disagree with an unknown plan.

That being said, there are lots of questions about Bush's plan besides how much will be borrowed to pay transition costs. Everyone has always known that the amounts in the Social Security trust fund would someday have to be borrowed in the bond market in order to pay future benefits. That is one reason the trust fund always has been included as part of the national debt. Depending on the details of Bush's plan, borrowing the transition costs may just be bringing that borrowing forward in time. The details of Bush's plan will have to address several other questions that may matter more than the amount borrowed to cover transition costs.

Among those questions are:

Will benefits be reduced for people who choose not to participate in the private accounts?

How much are benefits going to be reduced for each age group participating in the private accounts?

How will survivor benefits be affected, especially for participants in the private account system who then die young?

Will the decision to participate in the private account system be irrevocable?

What investments will the government allow individuals to make in the private accounts?

What other decisions, such as asset allocation and rebalancing, will the government allow individuals to make and how often?

What will be the administrative costs of the private account system and who will pay such costs?

What limits, if any, will the government place on future increases in the administrative costs?

What remedies will the government allow to private account participants for misfeasance and malfeasance by the managers of the accounts?

What safety net will exist for participants in the private accounts who have catastrophic losses in their accounts after or near retirement age?

What the democrats need to do now is keep their powder dry and prepare the questions to ask Bush when he finally does reveal his plan. With regard to preparing those questions, democrats should be doing a little research to find out what the expectations of the supporters of Bush's plan are. If those expectations are not met, Bush will lose a lot of support for his plan.

[Malva Zebrina]

18. Do you really believe that?

Knowing what we know during the past four years?

Do you really believe that the young people will be knowledgeable about this?

I don't

I think all they see and have bought is that they are paying for some 75 year old guy to have a life saving operation, when he is most likely going to die in the next five years or so.

No--it is the young against the old in this fight. I believe that.

They want THEIR money and do not want to give it to some decripit, saliva spouting old person who needs care.

That is what they have bought--the panic.

There is of course no reason for the panic if they knew the facts, but they do NOT. I am convinced, due to several conversations I have had, and to what I have read, the average young person thinks they can make a million on the stock market and the hell with all the rest.

[snippy]

26. I do believe it and I agree with everthing you wrote.

Especially this

There is of course no reason for the panic if they knew the facts, but they do NOT. I am convinced, due to several conversations I have had, and to what I have read, the average young person thinks they can make a million on the stock market and the hell with all the rest.

I think Bush himself is going to destroy much of his support when he finally reveals his plan. I think the average young person who supports Bush on this is going to be very disappointed. Until he does reveal his plan democrats should wait and develop their strategy to oppose it. Squealing like a stuck pig about something that no one knows anything about yet is not going to persuade many people to agree with you. Democrats don't need to persuade people that already agree with them. They need to persuade people who don't. To do that they need a strategy but more importantly they need the details.

[creeksneakers2]

38. We need to frame it before it gets away

I notice that you are already calling the trillions we have to borrow "transition costs." That's one of their phrases. It sounds like after a time period the costs will go away. We have to pay that money back. The system will be saving zero.

I prefer we describe this as "Bush borrowing money from our grandkids to gamble with."

Then it will be framed..and we can fight over the details for the people who are actually listening. There will be no shortage of powder for Dems on this one.

[snippy]

62. We don't know whether the amounts to be borrowed are "transition costs"

or not since the details of Bush's plan are still secret. The republicans will enjoy a significant tactical and strategic advantage if the democrats intend to use a strategy of making different knee jerk responses from various different individuals to each detail as it is released. A piecemeal attack will not be as successful as a comprehensive one. But we need the details to formulate a comprehensive attack. For now I think the best framing is that "no one can intelligently evaluate a secret plan."

[creeksneakers2]

69. "Evaluate"

makes it sound like it might be OK. We know for sure he is going to borrow money and we know for sure he is going to gamble with it. The only possible way to increase yield is to increase risk. Otherwise, who would buy the bonds at a lower yield than where the SS investments are planned?

[snippy]

72. We may know all of that but we need to persuade people who

support Bush's plan. If we make no effort to persuade those people with reasoned, rational arguments we will lose and Bush will win. The republican party understands the logic and benefit of persuading people to agree with their lies extremely well. The democratic party rarely attempts to persuade people that its positions are better. The democratic party needs to change that.

[tsuki]

50. Let me tell you from experience what happens when you give those

money grubbers your money. I found out after my dad died.

In 1960, dad sign up for a Dryfus Mutual fund. According to the payment stubs, he paid $50 a month for 10 years. His investment was supposed to be two or three times what he invested in 10 years, MORE if he left it in longer, according to what he was told by the salesman.

A look at the stubs shows that he paid almost 30% in commissions and fees. His "investment" was less than $36. per month.

After he died in 1975, 15 years later, the fund was worth $5000.00.

In 1960, it was a sure thing; in 1975, it was a gamble. But not for Dryfus.

[Pastiche423]

23. "It is too soon to fight Bush's plan for Social Security."

His plan is to privitize Social Security.

No further questions need be asked.

[snippy]

28. If that is your entire argument then everyone who already agrees

with you will continue to agree with you and everyone who already disagrees with you will continue to disagree with you. You will persuade no one and Bush will be successful. Democrats need a strategy which includes a well reasoned argument based on facts and the details of Bush's plan if they hope to win on this.

[Rose Siding]

47. Then we're in good shape.

The public already opposes deeper deficits and so far, the plan drips with them.

snip>
"Q So the principle is that at least some of the transition costs will be financed --

"MR. McCLELLAN: We keep talking about cost. It's a savings, because the cost is $10 trillion of doing nothing, and this will actually be a savings from that cost of doing nothing.

"Q The borrowed money will have to be paid back. It's not imaginary, right?

"MR. McCLELLAN: And it will be a savings over the overall costs under the current system.

"Q That's your belief, but for now, the money will be borrowed and will have to be paid back.

"MR. McCLELLAN: It will be a savings over the long-term.

"Q What about the short-term, right now --

"Q And what is the basis for $10 trillion?

"MR. McCLELLAN: Bob has the floor. April, you've had your question, Mark, you've had your question. Bob, it's your question. I'll come back to you if I can."
<end snip

Froomkin lays out a couple of problems with what we know so far...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/politics/administration/whbriefing/

[bunkerbuster1]

32. Six simple words: One Trillion dollars of new debt

to finance this crap.

On one hand I agree that we need to time our attack approriately, but we shouldn't bother playing nice with these theives.

We need to torpedo them and fight as dirty as we can.

[UVASAM1]

34. we need more

than the debt argument. if it comes down to "change the system to invest" versus "1 trillion" we lose. People dont care about deficits. Never have.

[bunkerbuster1]

35. We should say he's SPENDING a trillion, then. Perhaps.

And frame this as a full-employment act for brokers who've been shoveling cash Chimpy's way, methinks.

Ok, perhaps I'm doing a sucky job of framing this, just throwing stuff out.

[Rose Siding]

40. Can you back that up?

In a Jan. poll, 52% said cancel the tax cut if it would avoid a deficit.

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/business/DailyNews/taxcut_poll_020122.html

Last month, that number grew to 66%.

http://www.freep.com/news/nw/poll8e_20041108.htm

These polls weren't about a choice involving Social Security, and it's a very popular program but so are tax cuts, usually.

[UVASAM1]

71. oh

Yeah, people always say things like that in polls. But if shrub tacks on antoher trillion in deficit, i doubt it would hurt him. Didnt this time. I cant remember an eleciton where a president has really been hurt/lost b/c of running up the nat'l debt.

[snippy]

60. I agree that "We need to torpedo them and fight as dirty as we can."

But I think we need an overall strategy rather than a series of varying kneejerk reactions from various democrats to each detail as it is released.

In any competitive endeavor an overall strategy is essential for success. The republican party has developed and followed a comprehensive strategy for over twenty years with the goal of becoming the majority party. That strategy has worked. One excellent example of this is illustrated by the 1996 and 1998 elections. The GOP sent out memos and made presentations to its supporters telling them not to worry about losses in the Congressional races in these elections because the party was focusing on state races so it could control more of the redistricting process following the 2000 census. The republicans were willing to sacrifice small short term gains in Congress for larger gains later. This worked extremely well for the GOP.

The democratic party needs an overall strategy for regaining majority status and part of that overall strategy should include strategies for how to fight individual proposals. At this point in the fight over Social Security democrats can't develop a strategy to criticize Bush's plan because the details are not known. For now I think it is better to say that the plan can not be intelligently evaluated since it is still secret and to let the optimistic expectations of Bush's supporters build to unreasonable levels so that they can be crushed with overwhelming disappointment when the details are released. To better prepare to crush those expectations democrats should be polling focus groups of Bush supporters to learn what their expectations are. They should use that information to help develop the strategy for defeating Bush on this.

On edit: Since the details of Bush's plan still are a secret we don't actually know whether there will be "One Trillion dollars of new debt." The entire amount of the Social Security trust fund is currently part of the national debt. If the trust fund balance is reduced by the amount borrowed there would be no increase in the national debt, although there would be an increase in the publicly held portion of the debt. If Bush can tell the public that the national debt will not increase under his plan that is all many people will hear or remember. This further illustrates the need to know the details in order to intelligently criticize Bush's plan.

[bunkerbuster1]

63. Way too thoughtful for this sub-thread.

Seriously, I couldn't agree more. Right now we Democrats are living in a faith-based world--we have to have faith that our leadership is actually thinking strategically and planning their moves carefully.

I see little fact, however, to back up that faith. It certainly doesn't help when we've got DINO publicity whores who'll express support for Team Bush's objectives.

[snippy]

65. LOL. I too see few facts to back up any faith. Very depressing.

The lack of a comprehensive strategy probably makes it easier for DINO whores to go off in the wrong direction.

[Just Me]

36. Great questions! I would add: What happens IF another depression

takes place (although that could fall in your catastrophic losses question)?

I am printing out your well-reasoned questions and will follow-up.

:yourock:

[ozymandius]

16. Notice the headline: "Democrat" - singular noun

What an idiot. He does this knowing that Hastert will not allow him to introduce any legislation of his because he is a Democrat. Has he been living in a cave?

[ninkasi]

20. No more!

Okay, from now on, we need to watch very carefully the voting record of every single Democrat now serving in the House or Senate. When election time rolls around, I will not support, or vote for, any Democrat who is an appeaser, or any DINO.

We have nothing left to lose. We have watched through 4 years of losing ground to ever increasingly right-wing politicians, and we still don't understand why we lose. We lose because we are trying to be moderate, or Republican Lite. If I wanted a moderate Republican, I would vote for one.

I want even more progressive Democratic politicians. We have veered so far to the right that the claim of fascist style government no longer seems far fetched. It is here, and here now. We have to move further left and hold our ground. I know some people believe that's a surefire way to turn off moderates, but so what? We've been losing anyway, and while I want badly to win, it's humiliating to think that even when we compromise our principles, we still get stomped. If I go down, I'd rather go down fighting.

[TahitiNut]

52. Letters to that effect to the DCCC would have an impact.

The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee apportions campaign contributions to Democrats in the House. If people started sending letters saying they're not giving a penny for the DCCC (which all Democratic Representatives covet), it may amplify the "peer pressure."

[ninkasi]

70. Sorry for responding late...

But that's an excellent suggestion, and I'll start there. Then I'll procede to any other places I can think of. Thanks!

[brentspeak]

24. Are there ANY prominant Democrats with the guts to stand up in Congress

and get in front of the cameras to say "The American people are being scammed. There was nothing wrong with Social Security. It was healthy. But President Bush and the Republicans, with the passive approval of a few weak-willed Democrats, have deliberately been trying to "starve" the program so as to enable a few well-connected friends of theirs to make billions and billions of dollars. We are being scammed, hustled, swindled by our own President."

[Poppyseedman]

43. Nothing wrong with Social Security???

"There was nothing wrong with Social Security. It was healthy."

Forgetting about the politics of it for a moment, though who can fix SS better is important, Social Security is broke and broke badly.

It's got a serious case of "Congressional Hand in Cookie Jar" syndrome.

I don't know how old you are, but if you are not going to retire within 10 years. You have a huge problem.

Somebody is going to have to pay for your SS or you will have seriously diminished benefits.

Those somebodies aren't out there.

[harpboy_ak]

57. getting rid of salary cap would fix it

> "There was nothing wrong with Social Security. It was healthy."

> Forgetting about the politics of it for a moment, though who can fix
> SS better is important, Social Security is broke and broke badly.

the fix is *very* simple, but the repugs and lobbyists for the rich and high salaried have been fighting it for years: simply get rid of the cap on SS taxable salaries. right now it's capped at something like $65,000. if you took the cap off and all those overpaid corporate bigwigs paid their fair share, social security would be solvent for the far forseeable future.

but don't count on the corrupt culture of the congress to make that fix, unless we start running candidates that actually stand for something against most of the incumbent DINOs in the house and senate.

[Poppyseedman]

58. I can't agree more.

Taking the caps off of Social Security is akin to putting a 45 to your brain if you are a politician.

Not only corp bigwigs, but a very lerge % of americans earn more than the cap today. Small business owners also.

[Poppyseedman]

44. Not blowing smoke

This is from Patrick Moynihan Commission report


The Final Report of the President’s Commission to Strengthen Social Security

Finding: Action should be taken soon to place Social Security on a fiscally sustainable course.

In the very near term, Social Security’s finances are strong, with cash flow surpluses expected for the next fifteen years. By acting now, lawmakers have an important opportunity to address the program’s
long-run financing problems while more options are available. The existence of short-term surpluses makes it easier to finance a transition to a more sustainable system, while still maintaining our commitment to current and near-term retirees.

The financing problem facing Social Security will not go away. A failure to act will only make the problems facing the system more difficult to address. It is true that there are no easy solutions to the financial problems facing Social Security, but it is equally true that a failure to act will only serve to make the solutions more difficult to achieve down the road.

In summary, the longer that action to strengthen Social Security is postponed, the more certain it is that necessary measures will include painful benefit reductions or tax increases.

Page 65


http://www.csss.gov/reports/Final_report.pdf

[msgadget]

25. You keep forgetting

Moynihan was on the committee to look into overhaul and wanted it publicized that Clinton had toyed with the privatization idea.

Edit: spelling...again

[Lydia Leftcoast]

27. Another reason why I'm not as big of a Clinton fan as some people here

:grr:

[rodeodance]

30. thanks all for the infor--DINO=Dem IN Name ONLY-- great

[UVASAM1]

31. ss

I'm really concerned about this. * is pushing his plan, and it seems like we dont really have an alternative plan to deal with the problem, or at least not an alternative taht has been clearly articulated to the public. If we're going to successfully oppose him, we need a plan of our own.

[mmonk]

37. The dismanteling of FDR's legacy begins

A legacy that created a long dominance by the democratic party and one which they now don't seem to care to save. They are all republicans now. I will never forget nor forgive (my warning to my elected party officials). 19th century, here we come!

[HockeyMom]

39. 20-something daughters

They are the targets of this Bush proposal. First of all, BOTH of them laughed at this idea. The 20 year old, college Junior, said, "But that is GAMBLING. How am I supposed to know what the stock market is going to do 45 years from now. What if it crashes?" The 25 year old is working making $12/hour. "I work 50 hours a week to make ends meet. Now I am supposed to PAY a stock broker too? Or I should spend every minute of my free time learning and reading the market pages? This is JOKE, right?" I asked them what their same age friends said of this and the reaction was very similar.

Even though we live in a BLUE state, this seems to have about as much appeal as that Prescription Drug Bill does among SENIORS I know.

[tsuki]

51. Your daughter does not have to know anything. She will not have

any say in her portfolio. Her funds will be handed off to the five or six investment groups picked by the government.

[jpgray]

45. This is literally a fight for our party's soul

If they take out Social Security, the New Deal is finished and I don't know where we are or where we'll be.

[VegasWolf]

46. Flor-i-duh. n/t

[DeepModem Mom]

54. If Dems don't oppose this, we lose it as an issue, just like the war --

do they really want to do that? Unbelievable!

[NuttyFluffers]

56. ahh, the nuance.

it's like wine to be savored... or is that poison? oh well, same difference. :beer:

[Zynx]

59. If we get the majority back, make sure he doesn't get squat.

Fuck him.

[Massachusetts]

61. NO!

No Taxation Without Representation.:grr: :grr: :grr:

[Jose Diablo]

64. Would vote fraud be possible in primaries

to pack DLC Dino's in the Dem areas? Could this be another result of vote fraud.

[aikido15]

66. Traitor

Boyd is a traitor.

[Megahurtz]

68. Maybe this guy got paid off

Thats how it works with the Repukes, big money talks.

They probably offered him something he couldn't turn down and he sold himself out. Bribes are a Federal Crime, but it happens all the time. The new regime makes it okay to do that (behind closed doors of course)

This country just keeps getting worse day by day.