Democrats in Denial

[papau]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A47775-2005Jan29.html

Democrats in Denial

By Steven Rattner
Sunday, January 30, 2005; Page B07

In his 1998 State of the Union address, President Bill Clinton waved his pen at the assembled Congress and declared that we must "save Social Security first." Democrats have since generally clung to that vision.

But now, in an ill-conceived effort to derail President Bush's privatization initiative, many prominent Democrats are suddenly dismissing the notion of a Social Security crisis or even a Social Security problem. Instead of offering sensible alternatives to the president's flawed proposals, Democrats are devoting their energies to attacking both the president's ideas and any notion of altering the Social Security construct. <snip>

We should not shirk from raising more revenue for Social Security, by such means as moving up the cap on annual earnings subject to the tax, now at $90,000. That would be highly progressive, particularly if we put the money into a true trust fund -- one that would represent a new form of desperately needed national savings.

The move toward a real trust fund would be facilitated by investing some of the Social Security surplus in stocks and bonds instead of allowing the money to be spent and replaced by the pile of IOUs.

Broadening the investment mandate of Social Security, as Clinton proposed, would have a further benefit: higher returns, which in turn would reduce the amount of additional revenue needed to maintain current benefit levels -- the closest thing to a free lunch. <snip>

[maxsolomon]

1. dems should definitely try to "raise taxes"

by moving the SS cap up to say, 150k.

it will prove so popular with "the average american" (who thinks their income just MIGHT go over 90k some day) & difficult for the GOP's media lapdogs to spin in a negative light.

with friends like steve rattner...

[MadisonProgressive]

5. The should raise the SS cap to as high as they need to solve

the 'crisis'. Why most people pay SS taxes on 100% of their income and millionares pay on less than 10% of theirs??

[Vinnie From Indy]

2. I agree and there is more!

Why the Democrats are not taking down one of the BushCo. talking points concerning "personal accounts" by pointing out that 401k programs are currently available as "personal accounts". At the very least, the Democrats should highlight the potential danger of the BushCo plan to all those holding 401k accounts. They should frame this aspect of the debate along the lines of "if you support BushCo.'s SS plan, kiss your 401k earnings goodbye." People will protect what they do have with greater ferocity than what they don't have.

[gumby]

3. Instead of offering sensible alternatives to attacking Iraq,

anti-war groups are devoting their energies to attacking both the president's ideas and any notion of altering the existance of Weapons of Mass Destruction.

How I despise this construct used by Rattner. Bah!

[RaleighNCDUer]

4. Wasn't Clinton talking about saving SS from the Republicans,

who controlled House and Senate, and were even then talking about privitization?

Or am I mis-remembering?