Democratic Senator Kent Conrad Calls For Social Security Sacrifices!

[Itsthetruth]

Finding Common Ground on Social Security Reform by Senators Kent Conrad and Lindsey Graham
January 5, 2005

Senator Conrad is a Democrat from North Dakota. Senator Graham is a Republican from South Carolina.


"With a renewed debate over the future of Social Security now underway, Republicans and Democrats alike need to begin by setting aside our differences and focusing on the common ground between us.

.... strengthening Social Security will require tough choices and, if done in a responsible manner, can greatly improve our nation=s fiscal outlook. Acting sooner will give us more time to adjust and allow for more gradual solutions to be adopted. But there are no easy answers. To address Social Security's funding challenges, all options should be on the table for discussion.

Both parties have been far too hesitant to ask the American people to make sacrifices for the common good. It is our belief the American people, if asked in a responsible manner, will embrace the hard choices necessary to save Social Security for younger workers and future generations.

It is time to address this problem. Social Security must be preserved and strengthened. But we need to be candid about the costs and willing to make the tough choices that real reform will require. If Republicans and Democrats can agree on this, we can save a vital program for generations to come."


Senator Conrad flew with George Bush on Air Force One on a flight from Washington, D.C., to Fargo, North Dakota and discussed Social Security. Senator Conrad said: "I've accepted the President's invitation to accompany him to Fargo and I will be there to welcome him. We'll have a chance to discuss Social Security. As I've made clear, there are places where I agree with the President, and there are places I have concern with the President's plan".

Senator Conrad has not yet indicated what kind's of "sacrifices" he thinks working people should make in order to "save" Social Security. While against privitization, perhaps Senator Conrad favors some of the other proposals Bush is suggesting such as raising the retirement age or changing the formula used to calculate benefits. Calculating benefits based on price increases rather than wage increases could cut future benefits as much as 60%!

Like I've said .... if Bush's privitization plan fails will some Senators go along with other Bush options to cut social security benefits? I bet some will. And Senator Conrad seems like a prime candidate to find "common ground" with Bush and the Republicans to cut benefits and tighten eligibility requirements.]

http://conrad.senate.gov/~conrad/releases/04/12/2005105A39.html

[still_one]

1. No compromise

[w4rma]

2. Conrad is frying himself as he grabs the third rail. (nt)

[atreides1]

3. Atreides1 To Senator Conrad

Have the US Congress give up their pension program and join the rest of us on the Social Security system.

In other words Sentor Conrad, you and your buddies lead by example and make the first sacrifice.

[SharonAnn]

7. They are in the Social Security system like us. See snopes.com

and look under Inboxer Rebellion - Moral Outrage.

Or search for Congress, Social Security

[atreides1]

21. They are in the system, I apologize

But not like us, nothing like us!!!!

Here's an example:

Basically, Congressional pensions are determined by tenure in office,
other federal service, and the average salary upon leaving Congress.
The "accrural rate" is the most generous in the federal government
short of the President of the United States.

For lawmakers who were elected before 1984, the pension formula upon
retirement is the average of the 3 highest years' salaries, multiplied by years of Congressional, federal, and active duty military service, multiplied by 2.5 percent.

More info at www.ntu.org

So for most members of Congress any SS benefit is a drop in the bucket compared to what they get from their pensions. And they get to pass laws that allow corporations to screw over people who worked for the pensions they were promised.

I say that whatever they get in SS benefits, they lose that same amount from their pension. I mean that's the way it works for a military retiree with a disability under a certain percentage.

[cestpaspossible]

45. Yet you continue your deception

But not like us, nothing like us!!!!


That is utterly false. Exactly like us, they're in the Social Security insurance system. And exactly like us, they can also, in addition to being covered by social security insurance, have a retirement plan.


Social security, however, is not a retirement plan, and Congressional pensions, just like any other employee sponsored retirement plan, or IRA or 401k, have nothing whatsoever to do with social security.

[cestpaspossible]

13. You are spreading a falsehood.

It is not true that the Congress is 'not part of the Social Security system'.

Can you cite one member of Congress whose Social Security card has been revoked and who is ineligible to receive Social Security benifits because they are a member of Congress?

[blueheeler]

4. Only 1

Remove the cap. Everyone pays 6.2% of EVERY dollar!!!
These rich SOBs get so may cuts and loopholes to jump through.
Remove the cap Shrub!!:grr:

[RobertSeattle]

14. There is a Catch 22 with that

the 6.2% tax is on "wages" only. (What normal people make in income)

The rich, such as a Fortune 500 CEO coul just "request" the compensation committe switch his/her "wages" to some other form of compensation such as dividends or capital gains, which aren't subject to the SS tax, and then just take a token "wage" for his salary.

[PROGRESSIVE1]

5. JESUS CHRIST KENT!

Not you too!

:wtf:???

:mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad:

Come on Kent, you know that there is NO CRISIS! :wtf:?

[Name removed]

76. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Bouncy Ball]

91. So you advocate bush's SS plan, do you?

Interesting. Do tell me more.

[cestpaspossible]

6. Sen. Conrad may soon find himself with no allies.

[katsy]

8. Here's one sacrifice...

that will pay off:

The DNC sacrifices Conrad's financial support in 2006 elections.

[Vincardog]

9. Social Security must be preserved and strengthened.

NOT CUT. Why don't we compromise and double Social Security Benefits?
We get the rest of the money from the missing IRAQ occupation budget. Remember the missing BILLIONS?

[Ezlivin]

10. How about asking us to sacrifice something else?

"Both parties have been far too hesitant to ask the American people to make sacrifices for the common good. It is our belief the American people, if asked in a responsible manner, will embrace the hard choices necessary..."

Why didn't they ask us to conserve oil? We would have.

Why didn't they ask us to conserve electricity? We would have.

Why didn't they ask us to give up tax breaks for the wealthy? We would have.

The only time they want any of us to sacrifice is when they or their cronies can benefit.

[asjr]

11. I wonder how Conrad got elected. This talk of compromise

is just that--talk. We assume the people we elect have brains. I no longer assume that is true. There is a majority of Keystone Kops running this country. Any DUer could run the country better than what we have now. I have seen Mr. Conrad speak and he has, in my opinion, a very smarmy attitude about him.

[Cleita]

12. I've been called on for sacrifices of some sort or the other, by

politicians, all my life. It turns out they are always calling on the common working class ass to make sacrifices while their buddies, who benefit from those sacrifices, belly up to the buffet to enjoy the windfall. Let him make some sacrifices if it's that important to him and leave the old people and their SS alone.

[sinkingfeeling]

15. No. In 1983 the baby boomers were asked to OVERFUND SS

so that a 'trust fund' could be built to make up for the decline in the number of workers paying for each beneficiary. I've paid the max amount of SS each year for over 30 years. I do not want my benefit recalculated based on price increases. I want the US government to honor the IOU treasury bonds that were placed into the 'trust fund' while the actual money went into the general fund. It is our money that is paying for the idiot's war in Iraq. And I want it back!!

[kentuck]

16. How far has our friggin' Party slipped ?

when you cannot trust them on an issue as vital as Social Security, what can you trust them on???

[Itsthetruth]

17. The Latest Bush Scam: Price Indexing Social Security Benefits

Bush Says Retirement Benefit Growth Not Realistic
By REUTERS
February 15, 2005

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President Bush said on Tuesday that limiting the growth of future retirement benefits for Americans would be an ``adjustment to reality.''

Bush said in an interview with local newspapers that he was not expressing a preference for one idea that would link benefit growth to increases in prices rather than wages. That idea, backed by some White House officials, would effectively slow the growth of the benefits.

``Benefits are scheduled to grow at a certain rate, and one of the suggestions, for example ... was they grow ...they grow, but not at a rate as fast as projected. You can call it anything you want. I would call it an adjustment to reality,'' he said.

http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/politics/politics-retirement-strategy.html?oref=login



Economic Policy Institute
Snapshot for February 9, 2005

Proposed Social Security price indexing would slash benefits
The Bush Administration has spoken favorably about substituting price indexing for wage indexing, a change that was a centerpiece of Plan 2 of the President's Social Security commission. Under this change, benefits would no longer reflect improvements in the country's standard of living, but would just be indexed to prices. It is hard to overstate the effect of that substitution on hypothetical future benefits.

Recent research by the non-partisan Congressional Research Service (CRS) sheds light on this issue. The CRS estimated what the effect on current Social Security retirees' benefits would have been if initial benefits had been calculated based on increases in prices—using the consumer price index—instead of increases in average national wages.1

Figure 1 shows that, with a price indexation formula, retiree benefits would have been cut substantially. Under the current wage indexation, the Social Security benefit for a person with average earnings over one's lifetime and retiring in 2005 would be $15,336 per year, replacing 42% of the average worker's income. If, however, price indexing had been used instead of wage indexing, that same 2005 retiree would receive only $6,180 per year, replacing just 17% of income. In other words, as the figure shows, a change from wage indexation to price indexation would have meant a 60% cut in Social Security benefits for today's retirees.





http://www.epinet.org/content.cfm/webfeatures_snapshots_20050209

[hfojvt]

29. I really hate the use of average figures

The average of $15,336 seems too high to me since I only make $23,000 for working about 2000 hours a year. If you add in the fact that much of that money is income tax free, that makes their income even higher. When you also add the fact that there are no social security taxes on that income it becomes the equivalent of working class income of $16,509.
It would not bother me if it was possible to make some changes that would change the average benefit from $15,336 to, say $14,750, if it could be done in such a way to bring the top payments down and the bottom payments up - eliminate more of the poverty among the elderly.

[makhno]

18. WTF

What is this talk of "focusing on the common ground between us." There is no common ground, Senator Conrad. What is the common ground between strengthening the social safety net and destroying it? A partial dismantlement?

It's time for unity in opposition, not compromise. What platform will the party run on in 2006? "Elect us so that we can help further the Republicans' agenda?"

[havocmom]

19. North Dakota, fire him

No compromise on this. Dems in the Senate and House are either Dems with us or with the evil junta and soon to be unemployed.

NO COMPROMISE! Payroll taxes DO NOT GET SENT TO PRIVATE CORPORATIONS AND THE BROKERAGE HOUSES WHO PIMP THEM!

[cheezus]

30. he's up in 06, you'd rather we send a republican in his place?

if so, the seat will be lost forever.

They always run some crazy winger on a platform of wedge issues. Considering this is North Dakota we're talking about (2/3 for Bush, state legislature republican "super-majority"), we're damn lucky to have Kent, Byron and Earl, even if they aren't the most liberal guys.

[hfojvt]

40. Exactly, it is a tough job

keeping a dem in such a red state. You gotta expect him to be centrist or even conservative. What is Lieberman's excuse?

[Zhade]

42. Lieberman HAS NO EXCUSE. Thanks for pointing that out!

:)

[sadiesworld]

68. Red state conservatives don't vote pug b/c they like

policies like privatizing SS, they vote pug because of social issues. There's no reason for red state dems to moderate on economic issues.

[Zhade]

41. Ever hear of a primary challenge?

Why is the strawman of "want a Republican instead" always thrown out when people propose holding Dems accountable?

Hello, he can be replaced in the primaries. And he fucking SHOULD be!

[hfojvt]

44. two points

1) A primary challenge tends to weaken whoever wins the primary. I still blame Bradley for helping to defeat Gore in 2000. Money gets spent, and negativity gets used in primaries that ends up hurting the candidate. Which is not to say that I do not hate candidates being selected by fiat or the incumbentocracy. Cleaver still won in Missouri in spite of a ferocious primary challenge.
2) Suppose a more liberal person actually wins the primary, against all odds. It is that much more likely that they will be defeated by a "moderate" Republican. Is there really any Republican, even Snowe, Chaffee or McCain, with a better voting record than Lieberman? I think Lieberman and Miller hurt us more with their talking than they do with their votes. They appear as Democrats who accept right-wing spin points and thus seem to lend those spin-points credibility which they do not deserve.

[Zhade]

46. Chaffee is certainly better on the war than Lieberman.

They are few and far between, but I'd take a Chaffee over a Lieberman any day.

[Name removed]

49. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[cestpaspossible]

67. Why don't you try telling us?

How is it different from other states? What are the facts that you have that we don't? How about a little more information and less ridicule?

[geek tragedy]

74. Conrad and Dorgan win reelection there, and are the pillars of the state

Democratic party. They ARE the Democratic party there. A challenger from the left would get laughed all the way to Canada.

[havocmom]

72. Nah, do what we need to do in MT with Baucus if he fails to stand up to .

the malAdministration on DEforming SS. Replace him in the primary with someone who will stand up for party principles instead of rolling over for the junta.

What is the benefit of having a Dem over a Republican if the Dem jumps through the junta's hoops like a well trained dog. Anybody playing the DINO game, acting DEM when in the home state then letting the neocons call all the shots needs no more warnings. They need replacing.

[Freddie Stubbs]

61. The Republicans are already working on that

Johanns to urge Hoeven run in N.D.

By Peter Savodnik

Secretary of Agriculture Mike Johanns will attend the North Dakota Republican Party’s Lincoln Day dinner early next month in President Bush’s latest effort to persuade Gov. John Hoeven (R) to challenge Sen. Kent Conrad (D) in 2006, state Republicans said.

The administration wants to convey to North Dakotans that Hoeven, if elected, would have the ear of the president and the secretary, these Republicans said.

The Agriculture Department — and the fight for more farm subsidies and greater protection from foreign producers — is of paramount importance in a state teeming with corn, wheat and soybean farmers.

The strategy to link Hoeven with the White House is similar to that used in 2004 in neighboring South Dakota, where Bush lobbied John Thune to challenge Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle, whom Thune ultimately defeated.

more: http://www.thehill.com/thehill/export/TheHill/News/Campaign/021505.html

[Walt Starr]

20. Target this DIJNO for termination via Primary!

NO COMPROMISE!!!!

[Itsthetruth]

22. How "Price Indexing" Would Cut Your Social Security Benefits

Center On Budget And Policy Priorities
Revised January 28, 2005

SO-CALLED "PRICE INDEXING" PROPOSAL WOULD RESULT IN
DEEP REDUCTIONS OVER TIME IN SOCIAL SECURITY BENEFITS<*>
by Robert Greenstein


This proposal is now in the news. In comments shortly after the election, President Bush said the plans that his Social Security Commission produced, the principal one of which includes this proposal, are a good place to start the debate. On December 2, the chairman of the President’s Council of Economic Advisers, N. Gregory Mankiw, criticized “wage indexing” — the shorthand term used to describe the current approach — in a speech, while stating that “the Commission’s proposals are consistent with the President’s principles for reform.” Most recently, White House Director of Strategic Initiatives, Peter Wehner, explicitly endorsed shifting to price indexing in a memo to Administration supporters that leaked in early January. It also may be noted that a Social Security bill introduced last year by Senator Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), which essentially turns the principal Commission plan into legislation, includes this proposal; the Graham plan reportedly was developed with the help of White House staff. These developments strongly suggest that the proposal to change the Social Security benefit formula by lowering the replacement rates is receiving serious White House consideration.

The Effect on Social Security Benefits

Advocates of this proposal have sometimes sought to portray it as not representing a benefit reduction and as simply curbing excessive growth in Social Security benefits. But the change would, in fact, represent a substantial reduction in benefits, as compared to the benefits payable under the current benefit structure. According to estimates from the Social Security Administration’s Office of the Chief Actuary:

Under the proposal, a worker born in 1977 who earned average wages throughout his or her career and retired at age 65 in 2042 would receive monthly Social Security benefits 26 percent lower than under the current benefit structure. Instead of this worker’s annual benefit being $19,423, the benefit would be $14,432, a $4,992 reduction. (These figures are in 2004 dollars)

[geek tragedy]

50. Part of the circular firing squad now too, Walt?

Jeebus.

[stray cat]

23. Roll back tax cuts for the wealthy first than I would consider other sac.

Why should middle and low income Americans be the only ones making sacrifices.

[reallygone]

77. You miss the point!

The wealthy are already getting theirs. They stole it from the rest of us! The SS reform will give some of what they stole back to us in a private account. Not only that, but those rich b******s should have their income above $90k taxed like the rest of their income. (there is a cap on SS payments now). That's what reform can do, help us middle class and low income people.

We are being too shortsighted. Don't you see that Bush is trying to hijack the SS system away from our legacy? He wants the Republicans to go down in history as the party that saved SS, and we are falling into his trap! We should not be opposing this, we should be getting out in front and making it a Democratic initiative! Our party can do it. The Bushites in Congress are too soft! Make the "Democratic Alternative" the only program that will pass!

10 years from now, when the SS system is paying out more money than it is taking in, the public will remember who stood in the way of reform or who pushed it through to sovency. We HAVE to be the ones to save it!!!!!!

[stopbush]

24. Before you jump down his throat, did you see Conrad on C-Span last week?

He nailed bush's hide to the wall. He talked about everything - how he predicted this financial mess 3 years ago; how bush is LYING to the American people; he showed graphs that show the exploding deficits once bush leaves office. It was a no-holds-barred roasting of the misadministration.

He spoke of how major expenses are left out of the budget - the war, SS privitization costs. He said the budget was a "deceptive document." He said bush wasn't leveling with the people. He said that this was the first time in world history that taxes haven't been raised in wartime. He said there was NO crisis in SS. He pointed out that rolling back even a *percentage* of bush's tax cuts would solve a ton of fiscal problems, including SS.

Kent Conrad is a kick-ass, speak truth to power guy. You'll notice that Conrad hasn't said in THIS article where there's common ground, but I can assure you, he will force the bushies onto HIS ground if there's to be any common ground.

Before you trash Conrad, I suggest you visit the C-span site and watch this video - he and Rep Sprat disembowel the bushies to a tee and still get home in time for corn flakes:
http://www.c-span.org/search/basic.asp?ResultStart=1&ResultCount=10&BasicQueryText=conrad&image1.x=5&image1.y=5&image1=Submit

[Itsthetruth]

27. What "Sacrifices" Does Senator Conrad Advocate?

Senator Conrad has opposed privitization. However, he joined with a Republican Senator in a call for unspecified "sacrifices" in order to "save" social security.

Does Senator Conrade propose "price indexing" to calculate social security benefits and/or increasing the retirement age? What is the "common ground" of sacrifices and bi-partisanship that Senator Conrad seeks? He hasn't said yet. But even suggesting that working people must engage in "sacrifices" to "save" Social Security is bad enough for me. I think we all know who will bear the brunt of any proposed sacrifices. It sure won't be the wealthy!

Senator Conrad should state clearly what kinds of sacrifices he advocates. I bet he didn't even mention his call for "sacrifices" during that single TV appearance on C-Span.

Perhaps someone can ask him at his next public appearance or visit on talk radio/TV. We should smoke the good Senator out on this.

[stopbush]

37. Maybe this is what he has in mind:

Latest Developments

Bush May Raise Taxes for Social Security
(AP) - President Bush says he has not ruled out raising taxes on those who earn more than $90,000 a year to help bolster Social Security's finances. Under the current system, payroll taxes are paid only on the first $90,000 in wages. Bush has repeatedly said that he opposes raising taxes, but his advisers have been intentionally vague about whether he would also rule out subjecting a greater share of pay to the existing tax. Asked directly, Bush said that he would not rule out raising that cap, though he does not want to see the payroll tax rate go up. http://story.news.yahoo.com/fc?cid=34&tmpl=fc&in=US&cat=Social_Security

Is it just a coincidence that bush has mentioned his raising taxes *for the first time in his tenure!* so soon after speaking with Conrad? I don't think so.

[Tactical Progressive]

28. That link doesn't play for me

I saw his presentation, most of it twice. Looked for the link afterwards to post it on DU but couldn't find it. Conrad is so onto these scummy liars and has been from the beginning. He presents budgetary stuff about every six months, and all of it is excellent, like Paul Krugman with charts.

But the media doesn't give a shit. Did you hear the questions afterwards. 'Does this mean that Democrats want to raise taxes?' Aren't Dems playing politics with Social Security?

[reallygone]

78. Go Conrad!

He is doing it right. Get out in front on this issue! Only Democrats can save SS!!!!!

[mattclearing]

25. Grrrrr...

With Dems like these...

[fob]

26. HOLD. THE FUCKING. PHONE. As I understand it, if NO ONE does

a DAMN THING and leaves SS alone, come somewhere around 2050 - 2055, SS will no longer be able to pay 100% of the benefits as defined TODAY, but WILL be able to pay 81% of them. That means a 20% benefit cut. What kind of fuckstick proposes a SOLUTION that WORSENS the problem by 300%!

[bpilgrim]

32. and that shortfall would only be 0.03 percent of the overall budget

time to make the RICH pay their FAIR SHARE.

peace

[bpilgrim]

31. whats his NUMBER?

sounds like he needs some feedback :evilgrin:

TIA

peace

[DU GrovelBot]

33. ## PLEASE DONATE TO DEMOCRATIC UNDERGROUND! ##

==================
GROVELBOT.EXE v3.0
==================



This week is our first quarter 2005 fund drive. Democratic
Underground is a completely independent website. We depend almost entirely
on donations from our members to cover our costs. Thank you so much for
your support.

[ComerPerro]

34. How about anyone who makes over $200,000 a year forfeits their benifits?

That kind of sacrafice?

Its not like they are paying into it anyway. The cap is set around $80k

[cheezus]

35. TRY READING THE RELEASE BEFORE YOU FREAK OUT

instead of responding to the *speculations* of the original poster.

----------------------------------------------------------------
Senator Conrad's Op-ed on Social Security Reform
Finding Common Ground on Social Security Reform by Senators Kent Conrad and Lindsey Graham

01/05/05

With a renewed debate over the future of Social Security now underway, Republicans and Democrats alike need to begin by setting aside our differences and focusing on the common ground between us.

As two policymakers -- one from each party -- who have been committed to the well-being of Social Security throughout our careers, we have agreed that the following common principles should guide our deliberations going forward:

First, Social Security must be preserved. Since its inception in 1935, the program has provided a basic safety net for Americans. Millions of workers pay into the Social Security system with the expectation of receiving a benefit at retirement, as well as insurance for their family in the event of their death or disability. According to the Social Security Administration, two-thirds of today=s retirees rely on Social Security for more than half of their income. And nearly 50 percent of Social Security beneficiaries would be in poverty without Social Security.

Second, it is also clear that Social Security must be strengthened. The demographic tidal wave of the baby boom generation will mean we will soon have too many beneficiaries and too few workers to keep the system in balance. By 2018, for the first time, the program will begin to take in less in payroll taxes than it pays in benefits. And by 2042, it is estimated that Social Security will be able to provide only 73 percent of promised benefits. Doing nothing is not an option.

Third, strengthening Social Security will require tough choices and, if done in a responsible manner, can greatly improve our nation=s fiscal outlook. Acting sooner will give us more time to adjust and allow for more gradual solutions to be adopted. But there are no easy answers. To address Social Security=s funding challenges, all options should be on the table for discussion. Under some reform plans, transition costs could reach several trillion dollars over the next ten years. Borrowing all of those funds would pass on an unfair burden to future generations and could undermine the fiscal strength of the nation.

Fourth, the costs of changing Social Security must be open and transparent. The American people need to be provided with an honest accounting of the costs of maintaining the current system and the costs of reform. If private accounts (either on top of or carved out of the existing program) are created, real dollars will be required now that will have a very real impact on a federal budget that is already deeply in deficit.

Proposals to conceal the costs of reform by placing them Aoff budget@ -- ignoring or minimizing the real and upfront fiscal impact -- should be rejected. If the corporate scandals have taught us anything, it is that hiding debt is a recipe for disaster. The public must be aware of the difficult trade-offs between benefit cuts, tax increases, and additional borrowing that will be required regardless of how we strengthen the system. And they must be aware of the impact of these reforms on the federal budget, the economy, and individual beneficiaries and taxpayers B in the short-term and over the long-term.

In 1983, President Reagan and Speaker of the House Tip O'Neill worked together across party lines to protect Social Security -- setting an example for future generations. We need to do the same thing now. A solution must be bipartisan; presidential leadership will be needed; rigid ideology must give way to workable solutions; and reasonable sacrifice will be required.

Both parties have been far too hesitant to ask the American people to make sacrifices for the common good. It is our belief the American people, if asked in a responsible manner, will embrace the hard choices necessary to save Social Security for younger workers and future generations.

It is time to address this problem. Social Security must be preserved and strengthened. But we need to be candid about the costs and willing to make the tough choices that real reform will require. If Republicans and Democrats can agree on this, we can save a vital program for generations to come.

Senator Conrad is a Democrat from North Dakota. Senator Graham is a Republican from South Carolina.

[bpilgrim]

36. he's using BUSH numbers and rhetoric...

"By 2018, for the first time, the program will begin to take in less in payroll taxes than it pays in benefits. And by 2042, it is estimated that Social Security will be able to provide only 73 percent of promised benefits. Doing nothing is not an option."

time to freak out!

what is the source of these numbers the reTHUGs like to tout?
the ones i saw from the CBO say the short fall isn't expected till 2052 and then it is only 0.03 percent of the budget.

tia

peace

[blockhead]

38. thanks cheezus

up here in nodak, we know what kind of man Conrad is...

[Itsthetruth]

39. Hardly Freaking Out

We must remain vigilant and demand to know what Senator Conrad has in mind when he suggests reaching "common ground" with Republicans on Social Security "sacrifices". It was a statement co-signed by Republican Senator Lindsey Graham!

Senators Conrad/Graham declared: "It is our belief the American people, if asked in a responsible manner, will embrace the hard choices necessary to save Social Security for younger workers and future generations." set off alarm bells .... as it should have.

So exactly what are the "hard choices" and "tough choices" do these Senators advocate to "save" a Social Security system that's not in trouble? This is no time to be coy.

Once Senators Conrad and Graham explain exactly what kinds of sacrifices they have in mind I don't think you'll like their answer.

[blm]

83. So YOU want privatization OVER any other changes.

So you come here and try to stir up trouble for Dorgan.

[Zhade]

43. There is NO CRISIS. He is buying into LIES.

Or pretending to. Frankly, neither is reassuring.

[geek tragedy]

52. Where does he use the word "crisis?"

Answer: He doesn't.

That letter is much more anti-Bush (from Graham's perspective) than it is pro-Bush from Conrad's perspective.

[cestpaspossible]

47. Will Conrad be a team player?

I don't see any substantive point in his statement other than this:

A solution must be bipartisan; presidential leadership will be needed; rigid ideology must give way to workable solutions; and reasonable sacrifice will be required.

So Conrad is calling for bipartisanship under the leadership of Bush, and telegraphing his willingness to sacrifice his ideals.

That's not teamwork, and it should be no surprise to anyone that those who are working for our team to win this fight are disappointed with Senator Conrad.

[geek tragedy]

53. Oh good god give me a break.

People are taking things WAY out of context and blowing them WAY out of proportion.

[cestpaspossible]

57. nt

nt

[geek tragedy]

60. He's trying to smoke Bush out.

He is not saying is going to sell out--you just made that part up.

[cestpaspossible]

62. Right. Based on his track record of 'smoking Bush out' in the past.

The track record that doesn't exist, that is.

[geek tragedy]

63. Whatever.

Some people insist on eating our own around here. Ugh.

[cestpaspossible]

64. Has he ever 'smoked Bush out' in the past?

I'm not pretending to be an expert on Conrad's record, why don't you trying telling me why I should give him the benefit of the doubt? Does he have a history of fighting partisan battles? Does he have a history of winning them?

If you don't want to address my specific criticisms of his statement, why don't you give me some other reasons to support him?

[geek tragedy]

65. He's ranking member on the Budget Committee and a big time

pest for the administration. He's extremely concerned about the budget deficit.

He is also in their crosshairs for 2006.

[cestpaspossible]

66. Can you give me an example of a partisan battle he has fought?

[geek tragedy]

73. Uh, have you been paying attention to the federal budget the past

few years?

Conrad has been ripping Bush a new one frequently.

His staffers smoked the Rethugs out when they wanted to get access to everyone's tax returns--so they could Swift Boat every Democratic candidate for office in the country into the foreseeable future.

Here's how critical he's been--Novakula has targeted him in several opinion columns.

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/robertnovak/rn20010709.shtml

<snip>
A show trial will be conducted Thursday by the Senate Budget Committee. The prosecutor is the committee's new Democratic chairman, Sen. Kent Conrad of North Dakota. The defendant in the dock is Mitch Daniels, Office of Management and Budget (OMB) director.

As in all show trials, the verdict is a foregone conclusion: Daniels is guilty of promoting President Bush's policies that have reduced the budget surplus to a mere $200 billion for the current fiscal year. The penalty is less clear, apart from hoped-for political ruin visited upon the Republicans in the 2002 elections. Implicitly, Conrad wants to impose higher taxes on a shaky economy.
<snip>

[cestpaspossible]

75. Oh yeah

I remember watching that battle (over the provision in the omnibus bill) on cspan... he was good on that one.

[cestpaspossible]

58. Out of context?

The entire statement is available in the comment I replied to so it is simply false to say that the context is not available.


And let's examine this: rigid ideology must give way to workable solutions

now if what Conrad means is the Bush's rigid ideological commitment to not raising the cap or the payroll tax, or repealing part of his massive tax cuts for the rich must give way, then I would support him fully. However, I don't think that's what he means. Do you?

[geek tragedy]

48. Conrad had the balls to vote against the Iraq war--did your Senator?

People who are wetting themselves with outrage really need to STFU.

This release is over a month old, and it does not commit him to privatization. If there is anyone in the Senate who will oppose irresponsible borrowing and spending, it's Kent Conrad.

[Itsthetruth]

54. Privatization Isn't The Only Danger To Social Security

Senator Conrad has stated his opposition to privatization. That's not the point. If the privatization scheme should falter, Bush has indicated that other measures to "save" social security are on the table for discussion and negotiation with Democrats. Bush will promote his back-up plan B.

Senator Conrad has suggested that "common ground" with Republicans should be reached on other proposals that would "save" a social security system that is not in trouble.

While Senator Conrad has failed to say exactly what "sacrifices" he thinks working people ought to make, it's clear that price indexing is a major one that Bush wants Congress to consider. And price indexing would mean a huge cut in social security benefits.

Whenever a politician calls for "sacrifices" to promote "the common good" hang on to your wallet and don't bend over!

Such "sacrifices" always hit common working people the hardest while the rich are left alone. They are never "equal" sacrifices.

Perhaps Senator Conrad will explain exactly what kinds of "sacrifices" he has in mind to "save" the system if pressured. He needs to be smoked out on this.

However, absolutely no sacrifices of any kind are required by working people to "save" social security. I hope you agree.

[geek tragedy]

56. Why do we need to smoke OUR side out?

Smoke the Rethugs out, not guys like Conrad. Weakening their hand when dealing with Bush helps Bush.

"Sacrifices" can mean levying SS taxes on income above $90k/year. When Republicans hear "sacrifices" they automatically worry about tax increases.

Why do you think Bush never uses the term?

In any event, the "DINO" smears and calls for his scalp are idiotic.

[blm]

82. So you're rooting for privatization?

Seems to me that you prefer to target Dems in your posts.

[BigBearJohn]

51. Hell, just repeal the tax cuts and that will fix the whole damn thing.

[Name removed]

55. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

79. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[onecitizen]

59. Get ready people

we are about to be screwed (again) by our own. Or at least they claim to be our own. The signs are all there. Pay attention. We are about to be HAD again.

Conrad now surprises and repulses me. One little airplane ride and he's now sucking up to that criminal who is squatting in our White House. Puke!!

Ed Schultz started his show today with a little tidbit that bush has made a comment that he MIGHT give in a little about SS. Oh yeah right. Like you should EVER believe that liar. Can someone tell me WHY any of the Congresspeople would think that that man bush would ever do anything for us EVER? Can they not remember all the lies he told to get us into this illegitimate war? God you guys, WAKE UP!! He will never do the right thing. He is the Devil here on earth.

If any of you congresspeople are reading any of this I wanna tell you that if you let that criminal get his blood-stained paws on one dime of our money, I guarantee, your days as a congressperson is over. You have failed the American people time and time again. You may fool yourselves into thinking that you have done well by us, but think about it. You have failed us at every turn since bush took over (in a coup I might add). You have given him his way at every crucial juncture. Now the Big Daddy of them all is about to be in your care. Are you going to stand up for US this time? And for life as we know it or are you going to suck up to that little twit, frat boy, criminal again? And fail once again in the faith we have entrusted you with? What will it be?

[karynnj]

69. Conrad saved the Democrats a lot of trouble

By finding the provision hidden in the huge Omnibus tax bill that would have allowed either of 2 Senate Chairman the authority to get ANYBODY's tax return without specifying why. When this was found, their was a huge ruckus with everyone claiming they knew nothing about it and it was taken out.

How would this hurt the Democrats? Whose tax forms do you think would have been obtained?

Before screaming that we should "fire" a Democratic Senator, it might be good to look at a more complete profile, determine if we're likely to find a better electable substitute (don't forget to assume a bruising primary vs the incumbent) and only if there is major potential gain and ALMOST NO possible downside should we even consider hurting an incumbent. Remember in 2001, after Jeffords became an independent who caucused with the Democrats instead of a Republican, the Democratic control of the Senate needed Zell Miller to remain a Democrat. In retrospect, Zell Miller, the scuzziest Democrat I can think of was important to the Democratic party.

[SoCalDem]

70. Kent....where were YOU in the 80's..?? Been there DONE that!

Perhaps if the "extra money" that's been siphoned off all these years instead of saving it for US (the ones who PREPAID it)was returned to the SS "fund" the "problem" would go away..

All that EXTRA money we paid for 20+ years said FICA....NOT senatorial/congressional slush fund:(

[Johonny]

71. I guess

I just don't see why ppl here are so mad at the guy. I mean a certain South Dakota senator just got the axe for being too much in the way in the senate. So coming off a meeting with the president a safe we're looking for common ground (but not saying where your common ground lies) and a quick I think Americans can be asked to sacrific for the common good ( nothing Kerry didn't say during the debates) seem like good talking points to me. I mean for all I know Konrads sacrific is for a cap on benifits followed be a regressive tax for those above the cap. And Konrads common ground is creating a 401 K savings account plan outside SS. Both plans which I could be in favor for...

[ProfessorGAC]

80. Conrad's Officially A Moron

Sacrifices and hard choices? Drop dead!

The system and the gov't that runs it made promises to the people paying those weekly or biweekly stipends. The retirement age was 65 when 100% of those paying in started paying in. Changing it now is breach of promise and breach of contract.

That's not sacrifice, Kent! That's called FRAUD! That's called BAIT & SWITCH! And, if you and Lindsay call cheating people out of their rightful recompense a hard choice, then you both deserve to be drummed out of the Senate.

Man, this galls me! People utterly clueless about economics and finance buying into this silliness about SS.
The Professor

[geek tragedy]

81. I'll take Conrad over ANY DU'er seven days a week, and twice on Sundays.

The program has a shortfall in revenues in its forecast. He's advocating that we fix that.

It's called being a grownup on the issue.

He is not in favor of destroying the program like Bush is. People need to think before they bash.

[ProfessorGAC]

88. I Did Think About It

Conrad is a moron. The correction to any budget shortfall requires almost no substantial revision. An increase of 0.25% in the tax rate (total, so an 1/8th of a percent to employer and employee), combined with an increase of the cap to $120k (in 2004 dollars) will head off the budget shorfall, even if the economy doesn't strongly recover. This can be phased in over the next 20 years, a bit at a time. (I calculate three phases.) I did the math, long ago. Did you? If not, i think it somewhat presumptuous of you to think i didn't think first. Also, doing the actual econometric and fiscal math would be the sign of BEING a grown-up.

There is nothing in Conrad's statement that indicates that he is willing to do the actual analysis to determine the appropriate solution. He is jumping on board with the screaming meamies who are predicting doom.

You accuse me of bashing, yet you swiped at every DU'er in your title. Who's not being a grown up, now?
The Professor

[geek tragedy]

90. I just bash DU'ers when they make idiotic statements like "Conrad is a

moron."

That statement was nothing but platitudes. You assume too much, and that is your undoing.

Conrad, btw, has as much credibility on the budget and SS as anyone on the Hill.

So, continue on with the stupid bashing. Conrad does more for the Democratic party in a week than you'll do in a lifetime, so forgive me if I have no respect for your sniping on this matter.

[blm]

84. And Republicans are targeting Dorgan because of Fahrenheit 9-11.

Beware of anyone who draws a target on Dorgan.

[geek tragedy]

85. Dorgan just CRUSHED his opponent and won't be up again until 2010. eom

[Eric J in MN]

86. Why can't the rich sacrafice instead of Soc. Sec. recipients? nt

nt

[geek tragedy]

87. Where does it say he's not talking about the rich?

They get SS $$ too.

[CWebster]

89. Hold his damn feet to the fire. nt