Bush implied in SOTU he's worried about Social Sec. for his daughters

[Eric J in MN]

From http://MOVELEFT.COM

George W. Bush implied during the State of the Union that he's worried about Social Security being around for his daughters. "If you've got children in their 20s, as some of us do, the idea of Social Security collapsing before they retire does not seem like a small matter."

Yeah, right.

He's rich. They're rich. They don't need Social Security.

If George W. Bush really cared about Social Security, he wouldn't be trying to radically change the successful program.

It can be left alone for decades to come.

Or we could simply raise the cap so that the affluent pay in on income above $90,000, instead of just income below. The New York Times notes that raising the cap to $200,000 would close almost the entire deficit in the program ("Bush Outlines Ways Cuts Could Close Funding Gap" by Edmund L. Andrews, Feb. 4, 2005).

George W. Bush is trying to sell a contrived scheme for Social Security, and we should reject it..

If Bush's plan passes, it will cut benefits for someone born in 2000 from $26,400 to $13,092 (first year annual benefits).

George W. Bush continued in his speech, "We must pass reforms that solve the financial problems of Social Security once and for all."

There is no such thing as "once and for all" when it comes to adjusting a government program.

Fortunately, Social Security is already projected to be solvent for the longest time into the future in its 69 year history.

The Congressional Budget Office projects that Social Security can pay all promised benefits until 2052, and most thereafter, with no changes.

It makes more sense for Congress to make minor adjustments 25 years from now, when the view of 2052 is clearer, then to make radical changes-or any changes-today.

Local radio host Wendy Wilde of "Air America Minnesota" noted this aspect of the speech, that Bush implied he's worried about Social Security being there for his daughters.

[Maddy McCall]

1. The Bush children, NONE OF THEM, including him...

will ever have to worry about social security. Indeed, salaries are not even a concern of theirs. They will live off of dividends that their forefathers have made in investments, many of which today would be illegal.

It's kind of like the Depression--FDR gave up his presidential salary, which was miniscule in comparison to the returns on private investments that he pocketed. It's all smoke and mirrors.

[northzax]

2. ahh, but he should be concerned about it

after all, his family's assets are tied up in T-Bills (read his disclosure reports) and, as we all know, in 2018, the US government will default on its debt obligations. Ergo, they're busted.

[baby_bear]

3. If the cap were removed completely....

1) It would affect only 6% of all people currently working and therefore contributing payroll taxes - that's right, only 6% of workers make more than 90K/yr;

2) It would bring in enough money to not only offset the entire solvency problem of the Social Security fund in the future, but it would provide enough to allow for the exemption of the first $10,000 of earned income from any payroll tax at all, thus making it a progressive rather than regressive tax on both ends.

Seems simple to me.

b_b

[Eric J in MN]

6. The Daily Howler discusses this.

Even raising the cap to $200,000 would take care of most of the shortfall of 2052 onwards.

http://www.dailyhowler.com/dh020405.shtml

DON’T ASK, DON’T TELL! Can we “save SS” without private accounts? The New York Times buries a bombshell: // link // print // previous // next //
FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 4, 2005

DON’T ASK, DON’T TELL: Good grief! As everyone knows, the SS trustees project a $3.7 trillion funding shortfall over the next 75 years. And ever since his 2000 run for the White House, George Bush has said that this “crisis” can only be solved by the use of “personal retirement accounts” (and yes, that was the term he used, even during Campaign 2000). But what other changes to the current system might wipe out that funding shortfall? In this morning’s New York Times, Edmund Andrews offers a bombshell:

ANDREWS (2/4/05): Some Republicans have even gone so far as to suggest the one approach Mr. Bush did not mention in his speech, raising the ceiling on income subject to payroll taxes, which is now about $90,000 a year. The idea appeals to some politicians because only about 6 percent of Americans earn more than $90,000 a year. Imposing Social Security taxes on incomes of up to $200,000 would come close to eliminating the entire <$3.7 trillion> deficit.

Good grief! What a bombshell! If Andrews is right, raising the ceiling to 200K would virtually solve the whole problem! And make no mistake: Few Americans have ever heard such a thing. Almost surely, Andrews’
editors placed this news where Times readers could barely miss it!

[Swamp Rat]

4. Bush imp-lied in the SOTU n/t

[Eric J in MN]

5. Yeah, that's another way of putting it (nt)

nt

[ikojo]

7. Bush and others of his socio economic class do not

have to worry about social security aiding them when they are too old to work. Heck most in his class don't earn their money from wages anyway.