U.S. Democrats demand conditions on Social Security

[Judi Lynn]

U.S. Democrats demand conditions on Social Security
Sat Aug 13, 2005 11:47 AM ET

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - On the eve of Social Security's 70th anniversary, Democrats said on Saturday they are ready to move toward revamping the financially troubled retirement program but warned against stripping away benefits to retirees and relying on private accounts for funding.

"We have a moral obligation to stand up and protect Social Security for the next 70 years and beyond -- that means stopping privatization and dropping partisan demands for private accounts," said Rep. John Salazar, a Colorado Democrat, in his response to President George W. Bush's radio address.
(snip)

"Social Security has never failed to pay promised benefits, and Democrats will fight to make sure that Republicans do not turn a guaranteed benefit into a guaranteed gamble," said House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi of California.

"Democrats stand ready to address the challenges facing Social Security's solvency, but this cannot begin until Republicans begin talking about ways to make Social Security stronger, not weaker," she said.
(snip/)

http://today.reuters.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=topNews&storyID=2005-08-13T154641Z_01_MOL356529_RTRIDST_0_NEWS-RETIREMENT-USA-DEMOCRATS-DC.XML

[Joy Anne]

1. stop trying to compromise, Democrats!

My letter to the editor, sent Thursday, which I was hoping would be published on Sunday, but I haven't gotten "the call."


One of the problems of the future we worried about in the 1970s was what
people would do with the coming surplus of leisure time. Computers were
displacing clerks, robots were displacing factory workers, and conventional
wisdom assumed that the profits of enhanced productivity would be widely
shared, leading to 3-day workweeks or 5-hour workdays at full pay.
Reality 30 years later didn't work out that way, and reality regarding
Social Security 40 years from now is highly unlikely to work out the way
President Bush's team of scaremongers, including Senator Santorum, have been
telling us. Their proposals are so self-evidently foolhardy and damaging to
our national treasure and our people that the savants have been proffering
their own schemes to fix something that might possibly be broken long after
they're gone. For instance, Patriot-News columnist David Brody suggested a
complex plan of benefit cuts with many narrow and rather arbitrary
categories that remind me of the "notch baby" controversy and then chided
Democrats for not putting forth a fix of their own.
I say we should allow our social insurance system to continue to protect
from dire poverty the elderly, the disabled, and the widows and orphans
among us, just the way it has been working for 70 years. If we really want
to worry about Social Security being short of funds 40 years from
now--instead of worrying about the incredible growth of the deficit and our
national debt, the quagmire developing in the Middle East, or the
whereabouts of the anthrax murderer--then I suggest we increase the level of
income taxed a little bit every year and increase by a month every year the
minimum age for early retirement under Social Security to parallel the rise
in age for regular retirement. In 2015, let's take another look at how we
stand.

[Massacure]

2. The democrats aren't compromising.

They put a set of conditions on reform - No private accounts, and no cut in benefits. That is a good thing.

[Warren Stupidity]

7. So then the reform would be exactly what?

Raise the FICA tax to further subsidize the bush tax cuts to the wealthy? Stealth benefit cuts via changing the cola adjustment calculation? Increasing the retirement age?

Somehow the "reformers" just can't come out and say in plain english how they intend to screw retirees and welch on the trust fund obligations.

By the way SS "reform" is dead so why is the asshat salazar trying to revive it?

[Massacure]

11. Raise the cap from the current of about $93,000 to $200,000 or something.

They only tax the first $90 some thousand. Why not just put no cap on FICA and lower it acordingly so that they have enough money for Social Security, but don't overtax?

[Warren Stupidity]

15. Because FICA is running a surplus

and that surplus is being used to float tax cuts such as the estate tax cut and to hide the size of the deficit. Raising FICA taxes would just subsidize the bush tax cuts and the bloated military budget. Not one dime of the new revenue would be used for SS.

There is more than enough money for SS until at least 2041 or so, unless of course you're one of the folks who think that the trust fund treasury notes are worthless.

[Joy Anne]

19. exactly

Why concentrate on fixing what's working, when just about everything else is broken?

[Mairead]

6. Raising the retirement age is a *BAD* idea.

We might be living longer, but we're not WORKING longer--we still get thrown onto the trash heap long before we qualify for SS as it is.

[Joy Anne]

8. retirement age

The regular retirement age has been rising a month a year since the last Social Security "fix." For example, someone who is now 60 must wait until age 66 to take regular retirement, not age 65. I was talking about early retirement (which has reduced benefits), which is unchanged at 62.

If the powers that be insist on some change, my first choice is raising the contribution cap.

[Mairead]

10. I understand -- but still maintain that it's a bad idea

I was one of those who took 'early' retirement because I couldn't find work in any of the 5 fields in which I have serious professional-level experience. Depending on the career field, a person can be 'too old' as early as age 40. 'Too old to work, too young to die' has been a labor-organising slogan since the '40s.

[Joy Anne]

21. I'll never get to retire

I've been self-employed for 20 years and am apt to be a self-employed 90-year-old eventually (still paying double FICA).

[Delphinus]

12. That's a good letter.

Not sure, though, what you mean by this part:

then I suggest we increase the level of income taxed a little bit every year and increase by a month every year the minimum age for early retirement under Social Security to parallel the rise in age for regular retirement.

[Joy Anne]

18. explanation

1. The cap is now $90,000. People with earned incomes above $90,000 pay FICA tax only on the first $90,000 and not on the next $250,000 or whatever. Making the cap $95,000 next year and $100,000 the year after that, etc., would raise more money if the trust fund needed it.

2. The regular retirement age has been rising (from a base of 65) a month per year for the last decade or so. A person who is now 60 is entitled to retire on Social Security at age 66, not age 65. This month per year gradual increase is set to continue until the regular retirement age is 68 (or it could be 67; don't bet $ on 68).
The early retirement age (with reduced benefits) of 62 hasn't been changed. A parallel increase of a month a year to retain a three-year spread between the two seemed reasonable to me, should the trust fund need the money, which I don't think it does.

And thanks! I liked it, too, but the newspaper wasn't impressed.

[newscott]

3. Here's my condition.

Make sure it will last and then leave it the f*ck alone!

[Iowa]

4. Oh for God's sake!

Buy buying into the need to "revamp" the system, the Dems are playing right into the Republicans' hands. Dems should just STFU.

[Eloriel]

5. Exactly. Absolute idiots with NO memories.

How many times have they been screwed -- if not in regular sesssion, then in Conference?

Unbelievable. Aaaaarggh :grr:

[Joy Anne]

22. Of course

And thanks for the new acronym to express my usual sentiments on our elected Democrats.

[Prisoner_Number_Six]

9. DAMMIT DAMMIT DAMMIT!

The fools. This is a war they do not have to wage-- it's already been won!

Can't somebody just shoot these people with a tranquilizer gun and put them back in their cages for a few months?

[HockeyMom]

13. They are setting out to eliminate the middle class

and privatize everything from Social Security to Health Care to Education. So what is going to be left? We can already see even the skilled trades industry being infiltrated by cheap wage illegals. The religious right is turning back the clock on science and college educations. By their Fundie agenda they are promoting earlier marriages, less education for women, and more children that people will not be able to afford. Cannon fodder for perpetual WAR? Plus, if you are not part of the elite "ownership society", you will be relegated to being a WalMart employee. The dumbing down of America.

[tibbir]

14. I'm on Social Security - Disability.

Why the hell are the spineless Democrats going to fall for this bait? Every time the republicans say they want to "reform" something, read "fuck it the hell up." One case in point was the Medicare drug reform bill. What a mess. Democrats need to just sit this one out.

[CityDem]

16. Spineless Dems

I hope our elected dem leaders have more courage on SS than they did when they abandoned NARL -- although I have my doubts.

[IndianaGreen]

17. I hear the double talk of appeasement

We should become obstructionists! Bush is a liar and a war criminal. The best way to describe Bush is as a crooked card dealer in a crooked card game at a crooked saloon. We should never sit at the same table as Bush.

The Democrats' response to Bush on anything should be "Just say NO!"

[jsamuel]

20. They are either STUPID or they are on the OTHER TEAM...

I don't usually say things like this, but I have to start wondering if there are a large number of Dems who are getting bonuses from the same people the Repubs are...