Smaller Fixes Could Bolster Social Security -AARP

[leftchick]

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=571&ncid=571&e=6&u=/nm/20050209/hl_nm/retirement_aarp_dc_2

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. retirement system does not need a major overhaul or private accounts and can be stabilized through a series of smaller fixes, the nation's largest lobby group for the elderly said on Wednesday.

The AARP, formerly known as the American Association for Retired Persons, said the amount of wages that can be taxed for Social Security (news - web sites) should be raised from $90,000 to $140,000. The change could be phased in over about 10 years and would cut the projected shortfall by 43 percent.


The government should also diversify investments for the fund that pays out the benefit to include a total market index fund that would yield a higher return, according to the group. That could reduce the shortfall by about 15 percent.


"Social Security does not need a radical overhaul," AARP Chief Executive Officer William Novelli said in remarks prepared for a National Press Club speech. "Reasonable steps such as these, including possibly adjusting benefits, are enough to strengthen Social Security for the long term."

[dolstein]

1. Hmmm, even the AARP won't propose a total fix

Is this really the best they could do? Perhaps I'm missing something, but this proposal would only close 58% of the funding gap. If I turned in an exam with only 58% of the questions answered, I'd get a failing grade.

Sure, 58% is better than the president's plan, which does NOTHING to address the funding shortfall. But must everyone succumb to the soft bigotry of low expectations? Is there no person willing to step forward with a concrete plan that will close 100% of the projected funding gap? Is it really that hard to come up with a total fix?

[Vincardog]

3. The GAP in question is only 20% of benefits depending on whose numbers

you work with. 58% of 20% is 11.6% leaving a gap of 8.4%
if you showed up for a exam with 91.6% of the questions answered what kink of a grade would you expect?
aWoL's plan is to bankrupt Social Security and divert a Few Hundred Billion to Wall Street.

[dolstein]

4. Sorry, but it's still a half-assed plan

Is it better than the president's plan? Of course, but then again, how could it not be? The test should be whether or not the plan would fix the problem, and AARP's plan doesn't. It gets you most of the way there, but at the end of the day, you'll reach a point where where the government is only able to pay 90% of the benefits. While I could live with a ten percent reduction in benefits, I doubt that there are many others around here who feel the same way.

If the AARP could figure out how to close 58% of the gap, then surely they could have figured out how to close the remaining 42%. The fact they were unwilling to do so makes me wonder just how unpalatable the remaining options are.

Again, I ask: why is nobody willing to come forward with a concrete proposal to eliminate the entire funding gap?

[Vincardog]

6. Because worrying about a possible cut 50 years from now does not require

urgent immediate attention. aWoL is manufacturing a FAKE crisis trying to steal our money and not repay the 2 trillion he has already taken with his tax cuts for the rich. Why can't the shrub put his plan out? Why shoould we put forward a plan in response to a fake crisis? Don't worry be happy and don't let the shrub destroy the best thing the Government has done in the last 60 years.

[dolstein]

7. If this is such a minor problem, why are people afraid to fix it?

You have to admit, AARP's plan doesn't solve the problem, since it fails to address 42% of the funding gap.

I can understand why people would be reluctant to deal with the budget crisis and the looming Medicare crisis. This problems are so huge than any solution is going to be incredibly painful. But social security? Puh-leeze. Compared to the budget and Medicare, fixing social security is a walk in the park. Yet nobody -- NOBODY -- is actually willing to propose a plan that closes the funding gap. Why is that? If they don't have the guts to fix social security, than how on earth are we every going to fix the big problems?

[Massachusetts]

8. "Because worrying about a possible cut 50 years from now does not require"

Will Rome be viable?

[indepat]

2. There is absolutely no intent to bolster SS, but rather to commence its

dismantling.

[bullimiami]

5. i dont think they want to dismantle it

they are angry that they cant exploit it.

i think the intention is to change the law so the crooks can legally skim 5-10-15-20% off the huge pile of cash that SS represents.

[indepat]

9. While reducing garanteed benefits to such a low level the recipients

will likely begin receiving a benefit some 40 years later of about the amount paid in payroll taxes (also subject to income taxes) in each of those years, this when the recipient will have life expectancy of some twenty years, i.e., get back one-half of what you had paid in, but forty years later. This might be a stretch, but we all should get the drift: social security will have become mostly a highly regressive tax scheme on which higher levels of income are wholly exempt. This proposed scheme would be a massive fraud in the private sector IMHO, but this is a sovereign nation and any Republican Congress will now give any Republican president whatever he wants.

[TahitiNut]

10. Social Security is NOT broken!!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x3077984

[cosmicdot]

11. kick

:dem:

[struggle4progress]

12. Balance the Federal Budget. Stop lumping SS surpluses with ...

... general revenues. Raise the SS cap. Means-test benefits.