Top GOoPer says Bush's plan is dead

[LynnTheDem]

WaPo and DKos:

House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Bill Thomas (R-Calif.) predicted yesterday that partisan warfare over Social Security will quickly render President Bush's plan "a dead horse" and called on Congress to undertake a broader review of the problems of an aging nation. Thomas, one of Capitol Hill's most powerful figures on tax policy, is the highest-ranking House Republican official to cast doubt on the president's plan for creating individual investment accounts. He said that as an alternative, he will consider changes such as replacing the payroll tax as Social Security's financing mechanism and adding a savings plan for long-term or chronic care as "an augmentation to Social Security payments."

Reid responds immediately (that war room thing again):

The President's plan is a `dead horse' not because of partisan politics but because it is a privatization plan based on massive benefit cuts, risky Wall Street accounts and $2 trillion in new debt. It will undermine Social Security at a time when we should be looking to strengthen the program and help Americans save.
And if a 50 percent benefit cut is not enough, now we learn Republicans are aiming to push even deeper cuts for America's women. Any suggestion that women do not deserve the same benefits as men is just plain wrong.

Wait, what's that about women? Back to the WaPo piece:

Perhaps most provocatively, Thomas said lawmakers should debate whether Social Security benefits should differ for men and women, because women live longer. "We never have debated gender-adjusting Social Security," he said. A House leadership official said that not even Republicans on Thomas's committee would vote for that idea. Thomas also said the system might take into account the need of blue-collar workers to retire younger than office workers.

Where did this come from? Obviously Thomas knows something about Bush's plan that we don't. Thomas may have saved his party some major heartache in 2006. Because if Bush's plan had included different benefits calculations for men and women...

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/1/19/112640/723

Oh yeah, that woulda gone over like a LEAD BALLOON.

[UL_Approved]

1. Testing the waters again?

Is this something that he seriously put into play? How could they even think of saying something like this?

It looks like the Harvard thing just won't quit.

[ebayfool]

3. Odd, there was a new poster in DU just yesterday posing that same ...

idea!? Wierd it gets floated on the net & pops up right after on news outlets. If I was paranoid ...


"...might take into account the need of blue-collar workers to retire younger than office workers."

Poster also brought up the women live longer thing, he was WAY supportive of these ideas. Feels like these people are just telling me to friggin' die, already - get outa their way.

[cornermouse]

2. Statistics say women pay more for women-oriented services

and products. Perhaps they should factor that in and give the women a higher rate of return than men?

[area51]

4. kick (n/t)

[moondust]

5. Call me suspicious.

Why should I NOT believe that they are just playing this way, way down, lowering expectations yet again, all the while knowing that they'll hand it to him in a heartbeat and Bush will thus receive glowing accolades for masterfully overcoming such overwhelming odds without which there could not be this monumental historic victory?
:puke: