Democrat Disputes Social Security 'Crisis' (Rangel does radio address)

[Rose Siding]

WASHINGTON -- There is no looming crisis in Social Security, and Congress should not rush to create private accounts, Rep. Charles Rangel, D-N.Y. said Saturday.

"The facts prove that there is no imminent crisis with Social Security. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office says Social Security can pay full benefits for nearly 50 years," Rangel said in the Democratic weekly radio address.

Rangel, senior Democrat on the House Ways and Means Committee, invoked the memory of the late California Rep. Bob Matsui, his party's former top member on the Social Security subcommittee, in disputing White House arguments that the system needs an overhaul to stay healthy.
...
"The White House wants Americans to believe that Social Security is heading for an iceberg. They think that, by scaring people, they will help increase support for privatization," Rangel said.

The cost of moving to add private accounts has been estimated at more than $1 trillion. Rangel said the figure would be about $2 trillion, weakening Social Security and leaving future retirees hoping for a miracle from the stock market.

http://www.newsday.com/news/politics/wire/sns-ap-democrats-social-security,0,5509059.story?coll=sns-ap-politics-headlines

[otohara]

1. Unfortunately The WH & MSM Is Quite Good

at scaring the American people. Iceberg ahead!

[renaissanceguy]

15. Seems it's the way to get things done in this country.

If you don't want opposition, you scare everybody.

It's called fascism.

http://www.cafepress.com/liberalissues/466053

[Strawman]

2. Rangel seems to be the Dems point man and he's terrible at framing

"The White House wants Americans to believe that Social Security is heading for an iceberg. They think that, by scaring people, they will help increase support for privatization," Rangel said.

See this thread for a discuasion on framing the Social Security debate:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=252&topic_id=939#

Please. Don't think of an iceberg, Charlie. You're scaring people too.

[rodeodance]

8. What is your suggestion for framing the issue?

[Strawman]

11. Theft or Pension fraud to solve a general fund problem

Caused by tax breaks for the rich. It's no different than corporate execs raiding a pension fund. Denny McClain rightly went to jail for it.

http://forum.rockridgeinstitute.org/?q=node/278

[chelsea0011]

3. Thanks for Rangel, Waxman, Boxer, and Conyers but

Where are the rest of the Dems? Why are there no new faces speaking out? What I'm seeing is the old guard progressives. If more don't start to take up the causes, nothing will get accomplished.

[Rose Siding]

7. Fault the media, not the dems

The party is pretty united on this one. Baucus caved on Bush over this one and there's even a pretty recent article up about that.

[Dr Fate]

9. The media is rufusing to interview MIA DEMS on SS?

Or are the MIA DEMS that the poster is refering too just not requesting interviews?

Sure, the GOP owns most of the media- but that cant be our excuse for everything.

[Rose Siding]

14. I really don't think it works like that

I don't think dems can call up the media and say they want air time or column inches. And how newsworthy is it for a dem to say they're for Social Security and against Bush's ideas?

Here are two articles with dems quoted in them, saying Bush's plan is crap. The stories could have been written from a different perspective, say: Bush Faces Wide Opposition From Democrats On Plan To Privatize Social Security -but they weren't...

Bush Pledges to Lead on Social Security
http://www.phillyburbs.com/pb-dyn/news/26-01062005-428223.html

Cuts in future Social Security benefits loom for younger workers with investment accounts
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/business/20050104-1053-socialsecurity.html

Quotes like that are all over, but you have to be following the story. Josh Marshall has been keeping up on statements and interviews and I've been reading him, so I've seen some of what the "MIA DEMS" have been saying there.
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2005_01_02.php#004363

[Dr Fate]

16. Really? So Chris Matthews would turn down a Kerry or Hillary interview?

Somehow I doubt it.

Think outside the box and stop making excuses.

[Rose Siding]

17. Has Matthews started having policy discussions?

He probably wouldn't turn her down, but if Clinton were on a show like that, the whole story would be about whether she's running in 08.

Would Chris really let Kerry present a dem version of SS? I don't think any segment would go beyond an election rehash. I guess Kerry could be faulted for showboating in the ME during the attack on SS, but it's been good to see his approach there, in stark contrast to Bush's.

[Dr Fate]

18. I see- so Hillary is incapable of framing issues then.

More excuses.

excuse:
"Its Chris Matthews fault that Hillary cant frame issues correctly. So we might as well remian silent and let GOP pundits comtrol the talking points."

Taking control:

"Look Chris- I'm talking about ISSUES tonight- you can have your spin-room back when I leave. I'll gladly answer any questions you have about the issue at hand, other wise, save it for the pundits. Now, If I may get back to the important topic that I came here to discuss..."

[CottonBear]

4. I've never heard the radio address on the radio.

What stations carry it? I've only ever heard excerpts on the TV news.

[Dr Fate]

10. Good point- they need to start requesting more face time.

Household name DEMS need to be on TV more- hardly anyone watches CSPAN except hard-core political junkies...

[dkofos]

5. We need all Dems on the same page on this

[OHdem10]

6. On Inside Politics, J. Woodruff

reporeted on friday that the DLC has given Press Release which reflects, this group of Democrats do not support the Bush SSPLan.

Also Baucus. D. Montano, known for being the Dem Bush goes to to try to get a program through' has publicly stated he will not support the Bush SS Plan.

These did not get as much coverage but are most significant. It was DLCers who helped Bush with taxcuts and that darned Medicare Program.

This time they have taken a stand against the Privatization Plan for
many reasons .


OHDem10

[papau]

12. Solution: No wage cap is equiv to 14.82 tax instead of 12.4 tax for OASDI

No wage cap is equiv to 14.82 tax instead of 12.4 tax for OASDI

http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/TR/TR04/II_cyoper.html#wp89438

From the detailed SSA reports we find that OASDI's wage capped (at $90,000 in 2005) 12.4% (6.2 to employee and 6.2% to employer) produced about $543B in 2001.

And HI's no wage cap 2.9% produced about $151B for 2001.

Therefore removing the wage cap would have increased the tax take for OASDI by 20%.

The Trustee's report says that the tax shortfall over 75 years averages 1.92% (this is actually much too high as it is inflated by not reflecting the excess assets and their interest that would occur should the tax increase be passed now when Soc Security is over funded that Bush uses the Soc Sec surplus monies to finance his tax cuts for the rich). In any case a 20% increase on the 12.4% amounts to 2.48% additional to the tax rate (greater than 1.92%) - meaning the overall tax rate would have to come down because we would be so over funded.

[Imperialism Inc.]

13. When is the last time a politician thought 50 years

in to the future? Most of them can't think past the next election cycle and I'm supposed to believe privatization is some kind of long range vision. Puuuhhhhhleeeazzzeeeee.

[Amigust]

19. Sent a letter to the editor. Thanks for this post. n/t