WP: GOP Senators to Propose New Tack On Social Security

[Pirate Smile]

GOP Senators to Propose New Tack On Social Security
Surplus Would Fund New Accounts

By Charles Babington
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, June 18, 2005; Page A06

Key Republican lawmakers, scrambling to keep President Bush's Social Security proposals afloat, plan next week to embrace an idea that many have avoided thus far: funding personal retirement accounts with surplus revenue that now pays for other government programs.

The strategy is controversial because it would create new budget problems. Either the diverted money would have to be replaced with new taxes, or Congress would have to slash programs now funded by Social Security's excess payroll taxes.

Republicans said yesterday that they will address those concerns later. First, they said, they want to create momentum and enthusiasm for Bush's proposed private accounts, which are so unpopular with congressional Democrats and with many Americans that some supporters privately consider them in deep peril.

-snip-
Planning to attend that event are two prominent Republican senators who previously have emphasized other components of the Social Security debate. Sen. Rick Santorum (Pa.), the Senate's third-ranking Republican leader, heretofore has championed the president's bid to finance personal accounts with payroll taxes that go directly into retirement benefits rather than into other government programs. Sen. Lindsey O. Graham (S.C.) has been a leading proponent of coupling private accounts with benefit cuts and tax increases meant to improve Social Security's long-term solvency.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/17/AR2005061701442.html

[Rowdyboy]

1. Of course! Why didn't we see? Fund personal retirement accounts

from money already committed to other social programs!

Then make deep cuts in those programs to prop it up!

"Republicans said yesterday that they will address those concerns later. First, they said, they want to create momentum and enthusiasm for Bush's proposed private accounts, which are so unpopular with congressional Democrats and with many Americans that some supporters privately consider them in deep peril."

Duh. If they are able to pull this shit off, then we Democrats deserve to be a permanent minority party. This is so incredibly, mind-bendingly insane as to make Ronald Reagan "trickle-down" look good.

[Robbien]

2. How is this any different

People didn't want Bush's plan because it was believed it would hurt the Social Security system. This new plan says outright we will hurt the Social Security system in order to have privatized accounts.

[TahitiNut]

3. Pumping federal dollars into the stock markets ...

These rabidly obsessed, greedy bastards just can't keep their slimy talons out of the public cookie jar, can they? Where's the 'free market' economic Darwinism??

The inflation of equities serves to do one thing: devastate labor. Let's be very clear: less than 1% of the market capitalization of all companies traded on the NYSE has ever been actually invested in the underlying company. It doesn't pay workers and it doesn't buy additional production equipment. After IPO, when stock is traded, not one penny goes to the company. It enriches people who hedge their losses by laying them off on public pension funds and people with IRAs, Keoughs, and 401Ks -- or shuttling them into the treasuries of soon-to-be-bankrupted shell companies. Equity inflation drains productive enterprise.

It's the most grandiose and malignant Ponzi scheme ever concocted.

[wellst0nev0ter]

4. You Can BUY This Type Of Brainfart Incompetence

Please, PLEASE, let them trot out this plan, we could all use Democratic majorities in both houses next Congress.

[struggle4progress]

5. I thought the program was going broke. Now we're raiding the kitty?

[Gunit_Sangh]

6. Another example of brain dead GOP

In three years the excess SS taxes will start decreasing and in 12-15 years payments will start to exceed income.

What will they use to fund them after that?

[0007]

7. Gotta protect the rich, cuz they were the ones that put junior in power

[cornermouse]

8. Haven't you noticed that its always "later"?

"Republicans said yesterday that they will address those concerns later."

[magellan]

9. After 4.5 years of these liars

...I wouldn't trust any one of them to give me the proper change for a dollar. ANYTHING the Republicans propose gets tuned out in this house, with the exception of Ron Paul.

[Algorem]

10. How about they all jump off a bridge,that should leave plenty for everyone

[grytpype]

11. Oh, this should work.

They are getting more and more desperate.

[Supersedeas]

12. what surplus are they talking about????? SURPLUS???

[spotbird]

13. SURPLUS REVENUE??!?!!

Sorry for yelling, but seriously these guys are depending on Americans being even more stupid than they are, which isn't saying much.

[salin]

14. new front of attempted wedge/war fare... watch closely

bush is already trying to get younger folks to view older americans as selfish leeches (ala they collect, you pay and there will be no money left for you)

Why? This (SS) has always been an issue that has worked for democrats - if they wedge it enough, they believe they will take the last safe issue (their calculation - not mine) away from dems... and will have one party rule into the seeable future.

So how does this play into it?

To fund this requires more taxes (now everyone else vs the greedy selfish older folks)... OR slashing favorite govt programs (the disadvantaged and my favorite program - say national parks... vs greedy old people).

Let's not play ball with this.

[candy331]

15. "surplus revenue that now pays for other government programs".

Surplus money? Is there such a thing? If so it should be used to pay down the national debt. Desperation tactics now to save Shrubs a--.