WP: New Strategy on Social Security

[yardwork]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A31333-2005Jan23.html?referrer=email

New Strategy on Social Security
With Some Risk, Bush Officials Invoke Clinton, Moynihan

By Jonathan Weisman
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, January 24, 2005; Page A03

With their push to restructure Social Security off to a rocky start, Bush administration officials have begun citing two Democrats -- former President Bill Clinton and the late senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan -- to bolster their claims that the retirement system is in crisis.

But the gambit carries some risk, Bush supporters say. Clinton's repeated calls during his second term to "save Social Security first" were specifically to thwart what President Bush ultimately did: cut taxes based on federal budget surplus projections. Likewise, internal Treasury Department documents indicate that Moynihan, a New York Democrat who was co-chairman of Bush's 2001 Social Security Commission, expressed misgivings about the president's push to partially privatize Social Security.

[yardwork]

1. So suddenly Clinton was right about something? Sorry. No sale.

[KC21304]

9. As usual, they are trying to blame Clinton for their two

most hairbrained ideas. Didn't you know that Clinton wanted to invade Iraq in 1998 ? It's his fault that Bush thought Saddam had WMDS. And now they are playing the same tune with SS.

[papau]

13. Clinton NEVER ENDORSED PRIVATE ACCOUNTS - only they were on the

table as his final 97-98 approach was to increase the Trust Fund yield by selling Gov Bonds and putting some assets into equities.

He also endorsed ADD ON PRIVATE ACCOUNTS VIA ADDITIONAL VOLUNTARY PAYROLL DEDUCTIONS

[The Zanti Regent]

18. Oh the Whore$hington Po$t would NEVER tell the truth about Clinton

All that Nazi rag does is dump on him.

[BlueManDude]

2. Seems pretty foolish

Especially since Clinton is still around to shoot the phase-out plan down. I bet they have some old quotes with Clinon using the word "crises" and this will become the mantra - "even Clinton said there was a crises". Just like the Iraq war - "even Clinton said... yadda yadda yadda.

[Goldeneye]

3. I keep hearing this Clinton thing.

And I keep hearing that Clinton's statement was based on different projections. Does anyone know what really happened?

[yardwork]

5. The article discusses the differences....

In public speeches recently, N. Gregory Mankiw, chairman of Bush's Council of Economic Advisers, and White House budget director Joshua B. Bolten, both cited the same passage of a 1998 Clinton speech at Georgetown University.

"This fiscal crisis in Social Security affects every generation," Clinton said in the speech.

But neither Mankiw nor Bolten cited another passage from the same address: "Before we spend a penny on new programs or tax cuts, we should save Social Security first. I think it should be the driving principle . . . Do not have a tax cut. Do not have a spending program that deals with that surplus. Save Social Security first."

[Goldeneye]

7. Thanks,

I didn't sign up so I couldn't read the article, just the clip.

[papau]

14. The 97-98 proj said problem occurs in 2020's - PLUS HE NEVER ENDORSED

CARVE OUT PRIVATE ACCOUNTS.

[Inland]

16. What really happend--four addl years of prosperity helped SS

The fiscal projections showing disaster are the worst case scenario. Since SS receipts are dependent on wages, one of the three projections assumes depression from the next day to forever. Every day the depression DOESN'T happen means a lot more revenue than expected and pushes back the day of insolvency more than one day.

So four years of Clinton prosperity pushed back the date of insolvency more than twenty years--again, in the worst case scenario.

Note, also, that Clinton had a different concept of crisis than Bush. To Clinton, Social security and terrorism were crises, but being a serious, adult individual, he didn't piss his pants and declare that everything had to be changed pursuant to some faith based ideology.

[wishlist]

4. But Clinton worked to balance the overall budget before tackling SS!

I hope this move by the WH brings attention to the fact that Clinton's first priority was to balance the overall budget before taking any steps to shore up SS which has a less immediate need to be put on a sounder financial footing.

It is so nonsensical and hypocritical for RWingers to claim that SS is in crisis when unlike the rest of the government, it has a huge surplus that will continue accumulating for another 15 years.

[annabanana]

6. Clinton had the RIGHT to say this!... He had a surplus!

The budget was in excellent shape. And he wasn't talking about crippling tax cuts like the ones that Bush threw at his rich contributers.

[yardwork]

8. This was a key difference between Gore and W in 2000

Each of them had a plan to use the surplus. Gore was going to use it on Social Security (which the Republicans ridiculed, of course, claiming there was no SS crisis). W said he'd "return" the surplus as tax breaks. So millions of Americans voted to get that tax break, and helped elect W, who now claims there is a terrible, horrible SS crisis.

As I said above, no sale.

[GalleryGod]

10. Unfortunately, the SS "LockBox" was on Antiques Road Show last week

Simple: No Money? No Programs!:puke:

[Ganja Ninja]

12. The surplus is exactly what the "crisis" is all about.

The Social Security surplus that is. The crisis for the rich GOPer's is that in 2018 we won't be collecting a SS surplus. That's when the government will have to start to pay back the SS trust fund. No more borrowing against the fund means higher taxes. The day of reckoning for rich tax payers that have been getting a low tax rate at the expense of the poor and middle class is coming in 2018.

[htuttle]

11. Seems like almost all of the Bush administrations' public statements...

...are just announcements of new marketing strategies.

Are they that proud of their marketing skills? Are they running the country or selling soft drinks?

Have they tried putting their Social Security 'plan' in a bright red box with 'New!' plastered on the side of it? Works for snack chips!

Does anyone else think it's weird that they announce that they've come up with a new way to lie to us? And why doesn't anyone in the public arena seems to notice this tendency?

[liberal N proud]

15. It still is a stupid idea, regardless of who they say favors it.

The haven't asked the common guy, the one who must rely on Social Security to survive in retirement.

[doodadem]

17. So Karl Rove is at it again?

The spin doctor, taking statements out of context, and spinning them to his own ends like a spider.
I don't think this is one they're going to push thru folks. Old people like my parents, who are totally dependent on Social Security, are scared to death of them messing with it. Statistically, people over 60 are the highest voting block in this country, and even the Repugs know it. They're already backpeddaling on it, especially the ones who are up for reelection in 2 years.
Now.....what would be NICE, is if the Democratic Party, once again, could be talked into doing something courageous, and have Bill Clinton make a public service announcement on TV.

[Cocoa]

19. let's get Clinton back into this

come on, Bill, take some time and make some TV appearances, let us know if Bush is correct in invoking your name.

[Coastie for Truth]

20. I think there is a world of difference between

1. Bush's carve out of FICA contributions (and SSA assets) to private accounts; and

2. The Clinton and Moynihan tax friendly treatment of add-on IRA's and 401(k)'s for low and moderate income taxpayers who do not itemize.

I may not have gone to the Harvard Business School and I may not have the purchased advice of Steve Forbes or N. Gregory Manikew - but I know the difference between the two proposals.

On the subject of the Harvard Business School (and its most illustrious alumni - Bush, Rummie, MacNamara) - do you know what the three must over rated things in the world are?

1. Home cooking.
2. Home sex.
3. The Harvard Graduate School of Business.