Republicans Urge the White House to Consider Tax Increases for Social Secu

[NVMojo]

this has got to be a Rove twist ....

WASHINGTON, Jan. 19 - Convinced that they need Democratic support to overhaul Social Security, leading House Republicans have begun urging the White House to consider tax increases as part of any deal.

"We want Democrats on board," Representative Jim McCrery, the Louisiana Republican who is chairman of the House subcommittee on Social Security, said in an interview on Wednesday. "I'm willing to listen to their ideas, whether it's raising the payroll tax or raising other taxes or changing benefits. I want to hear their thoughts."

President Bush has adamantly opposed tax increases as part of a solution to long-term Social Security problems. But Republicans have begun floating possible alternatives for changing the system as they confront mounting opposition to plans for personal accounts. Democrats, too, have begun to seize on the increasingly vocal reservations by their counterparts.

"It's a non-starter to talk about privatizing Social Security," the Senate minority leader, Harry Reid of Nevada, said.

Sounding almost eager for a fight, Mr. Reid dared Mr. Bush to offer a detailed plan.

more...

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/20/politics/20social.html?pagewanted=print&position=

[Goldeneye]

1. Raise taxes??

No freaking way...well maybe on those making under $25,000...they're ingrates anyway.

I really do think the dems are gearing up for some fights. I hope they kick some major ass. We need to keep the pressure on. I don't want them to compromise on this.

[frankly_fedup2]

2. Two things:

1. If they are wanting Dems opinions and help in trying to fix Social Security, they are only wanting to include the Dems for one reason.
2. So if they do raise taxes, it was the Democrat's idea and they snuck it into the Bill somehow.

Just watch and see.

[Lorien]

5. Yep, they know they need to raise taxes

(for a myriad of reasons) they're just trying desperately to not be held responsible for their actions, as always. :eyes:

[SoCalDem]

11. Raise taxes for everyone EXCEPT Boomers, and poor folks..

They already SLAMMED us all through the 80's so there would be a SURPLUS (and there WAS) to pre-pay our SS and also increase what was being given to OUR grandparents & parents..

"We already 'gave at the office' , thank-you-very-much".

The rich people of this country have stolen our SS money aofr 20+ years, and it's time for THEM to pay it back..

[aquart]

12. Trump has two $250,000 each chandeliers.

He's spending $100,000 on his latest's wedding dress. They've been showing it on TV like I should be thrilled he's so rich.

This man is insufficiently taxed.

[SammyWinstonJack]

15. There they go again

Raising taxes on us little people, hoping we won't notice and planning to steal every dime they can get their greedy money grubbing hands on. Take the cap off of SS payroll deductions, that should fully fund SS long into the future. The greedy repukes won't do that though, can't tax the rich who btw DON'T need SS .

[mulethree]

18. So unfair

A 'typical' american gets 72% of their income from wages, and that is all subject to a 12.4% tax for social security and an additional 2.9% for medicare. The rest of their income comes mainly from pensions and SSA benefits(~15.5%) and a little from other interest/dividends/capital gains(~5.5%) and a little from other business (5%).

A higher income person stops paying the SSA tax after $87,000 but continues paying the 2.9% medicare tax on all their wages.

The benefits you get from SSA are tied to your income, so unless paying after $87K will get you more benefits, then why is it fair? Further those earning well over $87K will usually have other retirement income that is high enough that their SSA benefits become taxable. So their benefits are not only capped, but also reduced by taxation of their benefits.

On the other hand, medicare is payed on all wages with no cap. But the benefits are given out based on need - health - with no relation to the amount of tax payed. Why is this a flat tax with no relationship between taxes and benefits, while SSA has benefits tied to taxes paid?

Why is a flat, all wages, medicare tax acceptable? Why are need-based benefits acceptable instead of benefits related to the taxes paid? What is the difference between medical versus other retirement expenses that justifies the different taxation schemes?

to a degree - the taxation of SSA benefits for higher income retiree's makes the SSA benefit somewhat need-based. (But do those taxes go back into SSA? or do they go to general income taxes?)

Yeah I'm rambling, here's something for bothering to read this far :
Well - read it in the next reply message so I can format it better.

[mulethree]

19. Is any wage-base system right?

Income          Wages	int+div	Cap Gains Pension+SSA Other Bus.
$25K to $30K	74.6%	 3.1%	  1.6%	   15.4%	       5.1%
$100K to $200K	70.1%	 4.1%	  7.2%	    9.8%        8.8%
$0.5M to $1M	42.2%	 7.1%     24.9%	    4.9%       22.5%
$2M to $5M	27.6%	 7.8%	 41.3%	    1.2%       22.0%
$10M +	        12.9%	 6.9%	 66.7%	    0.3%       13.2%

2002 data from IRS - Income is AGI so this does not reflect
many tax breaks. 

Any Way, Notice how the rich get relatively little income from
wages. 

To make it more 'fair' and workable, apply the payroll tax to
capital gains as well as wages, give bigger contributors
bigger benefits, but continue taxing SSA income at high income
levels to retain the existing 'need based' taxation aspect -
but apply that 'income tax on SSA benefits' into the SSA
system instead of the regular income tax revenue.  

Now every one pays a 'fair' SSA tax, and gets benefits related
to what they paid in, but the income tax recoups 'un-needed'
benefits back from the wealthiest. 

[NVMojo]

7. on the nail!!! that's what I was thinking ..thus ...another Rovian twist

[rwenos]

3. Thank God! Reid has some Cojones!

This Social Security rape has got to be called what it is!

[UL_Approved]

4. Need the Democrats help?

Since when do they need help when they have a majority? Are they fearful of moderate Republicans not towing the line, are they afraid of getting this stopped in committee? Or are they trying to set a trap so that they can get Democrats to favor the tax increase, then blame them for it? Any takers?

[ClintonTyree]

25. Ahem.............

it's "toe" the line, not "tow" the line. As in putting your toes on an imaginary or literal line.
I am the official DU "Toe the line" Police. Many people make this mistake, do not feel ashamed. But you have been warned. Any further "toe the line" violations will result in very light fines and no other action whatsoever.
;-) Sorry, this is just something that bugs me, no offense meant. :)

[jdj]

29. unless it's a Bush line of coke.

then it needs to be towed. by a tugboat.

[UL_Approved]

33. Its an old expression from the days of canals

Before railroads, watercourses were the only method of transporting large amounts of materials for manufacturing. They would hook up teams of horses or men and would tow the barges down the canals. This is what I was referring to.

And, yes, I know of the old army saying... :silly:

[Merlin]

6. Social Security Privatization is DEAD!

The lies are becoming more obvious, the numbers don't add up, the imact on the deficit would be staggering, the alternatives are nil, and the potential for Republican political disaster is enormous.

The congressional Republicans will kiss this off. Look for them to "compromise" on "voluntary private accounts" or some such thing.

If the do proceed with Shrubby's ludicrous plan, we will have them for lunch.

[snippy]

32. Maybe, but the marketing campaign for Bush's plan has barely begun.

Republicans just recently outlined their strategy for deceiving and manipulating the public about Bush's plan for changing Social Security. They are going to fight pretty hard for this I think.

Social Security Push to Tap the GOP Faithful
Campaign's Tactics Will Drive Appeal

By Mike Allen and Jim VandeHei
Washington Post Staff Writers
Friday, January 14, 2005; Page A06

President Bush plans to reactivate his reelection campaign's network of donors and activists to build pressure on lawmakers to allow workers to invest part of their Social Security taxes in the stock market, according to Republican strategists.

White House allies are launching a market-research project to figure out how to sell the plan in the most comprehensible and appealing way, and Republican marketing and public-relations gurus are building teams of consultants to promote it, the strategists said.

The campaign will use Bush's campaign-honed techniques of mass repetition, never deviating from the script and using the politics of fear to build support -- contending that a Social Security financial crisis is imminent when even Republican figures show it is decades away.

. . .

In addition to their own efforts, White House and RNC officials are working closely with the same outside groups that helped Bush win reelection in 2004, especially Progress for America, a political organization with close ties to Rove. RNC officials have privately told top congressional aides they will work with Progress for America and others to provide political cover through television ads supporting the Bush position and condemning those who oppose it. To coincide with Bush's new drive, Progress for America is running a television ad on Fox and CNN that compares Bush to Franklin Roosevelt, the father of Social Security.

The group also phoned or e-mailed Republicans, culled from its list of more than 1 million supporters, to enlist their help in selling the Bush plan, either by donating money or talking up the plan to neighbors. Brian McCabe, a spokesman for the group, said it is applying the lessons it learned electing a president to selling a public policy.

. . .

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A7797-200 ...

Note that Bush and his minions now are so arrogant that they are openly boasting of intending to use "the politics of fear" to deceive and manipulate the public.

By the way, this article describes the democratic party as

"scrambling to organize in the face of a multimillion-dollar juggernaut, have yet to settle on any particular counterargument but said they believe Bush's rollout of the idea has been rocky and new details will give them more ammunition."

So while the republican party already has a well developed strategy and is doing market research, building teams of consultants to promote Bush's plan, and contacting Bush followers to help in "selling" the plan, the democratic party has yet to develop a strategy. Democrats need to make a much greater effort if they are to have any effect at all on Bush's plan. Democrats need at least a preliminary strategy which can be implemented immediately even if the entire strategy can not be fully developed until later.

At a minimum, Democrats should be educating the public about the actual facts concerning the financial condition of the Social Security program. An astonishing number of people, especially younger people, think that the Social Security program, if left unchanged, will be unable to pay any benefits at all in the future. Democrats need to correct that misimpression. Democrats also should be pointing out that Bush is keeping the details of his plan secret. Finally, democrats should be talking about the fact that the republicans have announced that they intend to use misinformation, campaign style rallies and tactics, and the "politics of fear" to persuade people to support Bush's plan.

To be better prepared, democrats also should be doing some market research, including some focus group research which includes both people who support Bush's plan and people who oppose it. Because Bush is keeping the details of his plan secret, democrats should be polling Bush followers and other supporters of private accounts to learn more about the expectations of those people so that the criticisms of the plan can be tailored to weaken support for Bush's plan. They also should be preparing to talk about the information concerning the performance of the federal government employee Thrift Savings Plan. Many of Bush's followers think that his plan will allow thenm to get rich. Democrats need to be prepared to crush those expectations when Bush finally reveals the details of his secret plan.

[0rganism]

8. just a guess: Tax Increases == FICA Payroll Tax hike

No need to up the pay-in limit, we'll just be raising the rates on the existing structure. Wouldn't want to deter any wealthy GOP donors, right?

[Erika]

9. SS can be saved by raising the earnings cap for deductions

An offer to "allow" a minimum wage worker to invest a few bucks of their payroll taxes each month in an investment account in hopes for a good return is insane.

[Rainscents]

10. Republicans are trying to trap Dem's!!!

This is a trap and like everyone here DU is right on the money... Neos are hoping for Dem's approvals and THAN.... blame it on Dem's for raising taxes! What a bunch of scum bags!!!

[flaminbats]

13. Republicans becoming what they once criticized..

the leaders of tax and spend big government with no accountability, a black hole devouring everything around it..the more it devours the stronger its power becomes.

[NVMojo]

14. it is a strange twist of things ...

makes me wonder who some of these liberal Repubs are....

[d.l.Green]

16. We want the Democrats on board, and we know they like to raise taxes,

so we'll agree to raise the taxes which they like to do(the Democratic myth) and they'll fall right in line. Then we'll blame them for not agreeing to this without raising taxes.

Yup, we all just fell out of a tree...:shrug:

[Oilwellian]

17. This has been their plan all along

They knew privatization would never happen because there's no way our economy could handle the additional $2 trillion debt. To this day, I hear people say, "Reagan cut taxes" but instead, I remember winding up paying MORE in taxes under Reagan because he raised SS taxes 3 fucking times. The lower and middle classes were hit the hardest by this tax because of the $80,000 cap they set for the wealthy. See how that works?

And what did they do with the surplus of money they gained from those tax increases? They fucking spent it.

Annual Social Security surpluses are credited to the Social Security Trust Funds, but have been used to cover government expenses, leaving in their place government securities, or "IOUs."

"The trust fund is bankrupt; it is IOUs from the government," said Sean Spicer, spokesman for Rep. Jim Nussle, Iowa Republican and House Budget Committee chairman.

http://washingtontimes.com/national/20050116-115804-7584r.htm

So now we're to be double-taxed because the Republican controlled congress for the past 10 years couldn't keep their greedy hands off of our retirement money? Isn't this the same thing as corporations raiding pension funds and then claiming bankruptcy? Isn't it incredible that a republican spokesman for the chairman of the House Budget Committee admitted that government securities can't be repaid? What does this say to other countries who are financing our debt?

THAT is the REAL crisis here and I hope Democrats don't agree to raise OUR taxes AGAIN while the wealthy still enjoy windfall taxcuts and perks from their bought off representatives. I hope it's enough to thoroughly outrage the American middle class.

[CreekDog]

20. This is a loser idea, hope the Dems don't fall for the bait

Can you see it now...the only way the White House could get Dems to change Social Security (not in crisis) was to agree to raise taxes on working class folks. I hate to see how that plays nationally.

[jdj]

24. SOME ONE PLEASE HELP

Is this article as rovian as it sounds or am I crazy?

I have not heard any dems mention raising social security taxes or any other taxes at all.

All I have heard them propose it to repeal the fat cat tax cuts.

Am I wrong, they are in advance trying to pass of raising taxes as an idea that dems want when dems have yet to bring this up.

someone please tell me I am wrong...if not Fuck them and all their spawn to the seventh generation. Most of what they do offends me, yet the wording of this article offends me more than most.

Are they saying since you dems would pass piratization then we'll have to raise taxes and it's your fault?

[ClintonTyree]

26. You are correct...............

that is exactly what they're doing. I've heard nothing about Dems wanting to raise taxes as a requisite to passing what will be the worst piece of legislation, ever.
It's Rove at his worst. Framing a debate that has yet to begin. I hope that he someday dies a horribly painful and slow death. The man is beneath contempt to the nth degree.

[finecraft]

21. McCrery is a lying weasel.....I know from experience

He was the speaker at my son's college graduation this spring. He started his talk by making fun of Democrats....then went into a long drawn out speech about how bad Democratic programs and principles are for our country, and how basically Democrats do not have the best interests of our country at heart. He even took a cheap shot at Ted Kennedy.....along with jokes about Hillary Clinton. He could care less about any Democrats opinion. I will detest this man as long as I live for ruining my son's graduation.

[jdj]

30. Now I remember why I remember him.

He is the asshole that was holding forth that night in 03 when Pete Stark called Mc Anus a fruitcake and all hell broke loose in the house. He really disrespected Nancy Pelosi that night by interrupting her and she called him on it and he apologized to her on the floor. Of course, they are all assholes...

[Megahurtz]

22. Tax the wealthy, they can afford it.

DUH.

[geniph]

23. Privatization=Welfare For Wall Street!

It's not privatization, it's piratization - ripping off old folks and people who've worked their entire lives to fatten the coffers of a handful of billionaires. It's sick. One can evaluate a civilization by how it treats its most vulnerable citizens - this whole idea would return us to the days when old folks starved to death in their unheated houses. It's sick.

[superconnected]

27. any taxes we give will be funneled to haliburtion

and the carlyle group and their subsidaries.

Yes Social Security needs help, but what happpend with that money? Why would they treat this money any different?

[Mountainman]

28. Democrats should not play ball with the repubs anymore.

This will be like the IWR come 2006. Dems won't be able to say it is a bad plan if they helped by voting for it. This is a losing proposition for repubs and we can stay above the frey by proving that social security isn't broken. It is solvent till 2042. Planning for after that is all we have to do.

Also we need to remind people that Clinton left a social security surplus which bush gave away to his rich pals.

We should just step aside and let the repubs stew in their own juices.

[TahitiNut]

31. Raise the minimum wage. Raise wages. Compensate labor fairly.

Social Security is the real "supply side" system ... funded by tax on earned income - labor. As labor compensation goes down in order to make the rich richer, Social Secuirty takes it in the ear.

When wages go up then Social Security revenues go up.

Stop the Bushoilini Enronomy that FORCES people into early retiremments. This is a beloved tactic of the corporatists - it reduces the pension they receive, reduces the Social Security they receive, and gets rid of people who know fraud and corruption when they see it.

[Supersedeas]

34. ah shucks Harry...details....plz talk to Delay Frist Denny, Wallstreet

lobbyists are hammering out the projections for profits as we speak.