Senate/House Democrats Will Support Social Security Cuts ....

[Itsthetruth]

now that private accounts are dead. Not all Senate/House Democrats will join Republicans in a bi-partisan plan to "save" Social Security by proposing benefit cuts. But enough will to get any Bush/Republican inspired legislation passed easily. 73 Democrats in the House and 18 Democratic Senators joined Republicans to pass the anti-consumer bankruptcy bill. Remember this news article?

Finding Common Ground on Social Security Reform by Senators Kent Conrad and Lindsey Graham
January 5, 2005

Senator Conrad is a Democrat from North Dakota. Senator Graham is a Republican from South Carolina.

"With a renewed debate over the future of Social Security now underway, Republicans and Democrats alike need to begin by setting aside our differences and focusing on the common ground between us.

.... strengthening Social Security will require tough choices and, if done in a responsible manner, can greatly improve our nation's fiscal outlook. Acting sooner will give us more time to adjust and allow for more gradual solutions to be adopted. But there are no easy answers. To address Social Security's funding challenges, all options should be on the table for discussion.

Both parties have been far too hesitant to ask the American people to make sacrifices for the common good. It is our belief the American people, if asked in a responsible manner, will embrace the hard choices necessary to save Social Security for younger workers and future generations.

It is time to address this problem. Social Security must be preserved and strengthened. But we need to be candid about the costs and willing to make the tough choices that real reform will require. If Republicans and Democrats can agree on this, we can save a vital program for generations to come."

http://conrad.senate.gov/~conrad/releases/04/12/2005105A39.html

--------------------------------------------------------------------

Senator Conrad flew with George Bush on Air Force One on a flight from Washington, D.C., to Fargo, North Dakota and discussed Social Security. Senator Conrad said: "I've accepted the President's invitation to accompany him to Fargo and I will be there to welcome him. We'll have a chance to discuss Social Security. As I've made clear, there are places where I agree with the President, and there are places I have concern with the President's plan".

Senator Conrad has not yet indicated what kind's of "sacrifices" he thinks working people should make in order to "save" Social Security. While against privitization, perhaps Senator Conrad favors some of the other proposals Bush is suggesting such as raising the retirement age or changing the formula used to calculate benefits. Calculating benefits based on price increases rather than wage increases could cut future benefits as much as 60%!

Like I've said .... if Bush's privitization plan fails will some Senators go along with other Bush options to cut social security benefits? I bet some will. And Senator Conrad seems like a prime candidate to find "common ground" with Bush and the Republicans to cut benefits and tighten eligibility requirements.

[MichiganVote]

1. Aren't willing to make any cuts for themselves are they...

[tx_dem41]

4. You of course do realize that the OP is pure speculation on the poster's..

part.

[MichiganVote]

7. This and all of the rest that will come before the 2006 election

are what I like to think of as ticklers. No matter where they are found or who puts them out, the same elected bunch who want to maintain their agenda are seeking the level of bullshit Americans will tolerate w/o taking to the streets.

The easy solution is to take more money or benefits from the middle or lower class. The hard part is to cut the defense budget, as fat a cat as ever there was.

edt/typos

[Itsthetruth]

2. The Democratic Party Should Take A Stand Now Against All Cuts

Democratic members of Congress who are opposed to ANY and ALL proposals to cut Social Security benefits should say so in no uncertain terms right now. They and the Democratic Party National Committee should take a loud and clear public stand in opposition to cuts. It should be just as strong as the opposition to private accounts.

No bi-partisan deal making and concessions to Bush and Republicans who are floating various schemes to cut our Social Security benefits.

[LightningFlash]

3. Truly disgusting....But yes it is true.....

I wish Howard Dean could stop them...

[Itsthetruth]

5. Howard Dean Can Speak Out Against Any Cuts

Why can't he? I hope he does .... right now .... not in a few months when the Republicans have lined up enough Democrats to pass their Social Security legislation.

[Coastie for Truth]

6. AARP Lobbyist Addressed Our Democratic CLUB last Night

What it looks like - as of yesterday's staff e-mail to AARP lobbyists, etc.

1. Raise the cap for FICA tax. $150K for 2007, and CPI adjusted thereafter. This will be probably be part of anything sent to the President.

2. The "cut" based on using the CPI instead of the BLS Wage Index is still on the table - keep on your Congressperson on this one.

3. More likely, the "benefit cut" will be in calculating the monthly benefit (this is a calculation the SSA does based on "inflation adjustment" of your lifetime earnings -- and see #2, above) for "high income" retirees. And the change, if any, will probably kick in for the "top 5%-10%" of retirees based on lifetime earning history.

[Itsthetruth]

8. Here's What Rep. Kucinich Said On Price Indexing Scheme

For Immediate Release
Thursday, February 10, 2005

Social Security’s “Sleeper Issue”:
Price Indexing Exposed By Kucinich

Congressman Dennis J. Kucinich (D-OH) today brought forth a new case against the Administration’s so-called Social Security reform plan by exposing the precipitous drop in future retiree benefits implicit in the Administration plan to switch from wage indexing to price indexing.

In a speech this morning on the House floor, Kucinich said:

“Social Security benefits have increased over the years because they long have been calculated to wage increases, which on the average go up 3.6% a year. So Social Security benefits increase with rising wages. The Administration wants to change all that. They want to index Social Security benefits based on a price index, not wages.

“As a result, millions of future retirees will see their future Social Security benefits reduced as much as 40%. Because prices do not increase as fast as wages.

“Let me give you an example. If you began working in 1959 and retired in 2003, at age 65, under wage indexing, your benefits rise with rising wages, you would get $1158 a month. Under price indexing, your benefits would be frozen, you would get only $701 a month. So it would be a 40% cut in benefits with price indexing, and a person would lose $100,000 in retirement benefits over a lifetime.

“Why the switch to price indexing? Because, the privatization of Social Security will create an additional budget shortfall. The Administration is going to have to borrow money to set up private accounts. The shortfall is going to be for 45 years, and the Administration is going to have to borrow $15 trillion dollars.

“They are going to get the money off the backs of America’s retirees. It is wrong, say no to privatization, no to price indexing.”

[Coastie for Truth]

9. That was in the Powerpoint

very graphic - the power of compounding - a difference of 1% per year indexed over 40 years - staggering. As my econ prof would have said "Non trivial."

[Itsthetruth]

10. And Here's Another Benefit Cut Scheme: "Indexing Longevity"

In Overhaul of Social Security, Age Is the Elephant in the Room
By ROBIN TONER and DAVID E. ROSENBAUM

New York Times
June 12, 2005


Edward M. Gramlich, a governor of the Federal Reserve Board and an authority on Social Security, says that if the architects of Social Security "had known about the explosion in life expectancy, they would have put in some adjustment in the retirement age."

One way to address the problem - and the direction some lawmakers seem to be heading in - is an automatic adjustment in the retirement age or the benefits received at each age to reflect increases in life expectancy. That way, retirees' total lifetime benefits would remain more or less constant even as they lived longer. Automatic changes are already made for average wage increases and price inflation.

For individuals, such a change, called indexing for longevity, would be little different from a direct increase in the retirement age or a specified reduction in benefits, said Douglas Holtz-Eakin, director of the Congressional Budget Office. But for the system, Mr. Holtz-Eakin said, it would make a big difference because the changes would be automatic and would not require new laws. It might also be politically attractive because politicians would be relieved of the responsibility of periodically voting to raise the retirement age or to cut benefits.

Still, pollsters question whether even a gradual adjustment based on life expectancy will sell. "You can call it indexing for longevity in Washington, but in America it's raising the retirement age," said Mr. Garin, the Democratic pollster. Mr. Bolger, his Republican counterpart, said, "There's no appetite for anything related to age among the public."

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/12/politics/12age.html?o...

[Coastie for Truth]

12. The politics of that "solution"

given the United Airlines pension fiasco, and the steel industry pension fiasco, and the "early retitrement epidemic" in corporate America - is that it puts a further squeeze on American workers.

[sadiesworld]

11. Why do we need to do anything when we have a massive surplus?

Why would we need to cut the outflow from SS (or increase the inflow) when we have trillions in treasury notes waiting to be spent?

Why would dems agree to such an obvious theft?

[Itsthetruth]

13. We Don't

eom

[LSK]

14. why not just raise the income cap?????

If you are making 85k+ why do you need to have the income above 85k not taxed???????

Instead lets screw old people who need money to live off of.

[sadiesworld]

15. Why not raise the cap?

We don't have a SS problem. By conservative estimates SS will pay full benefits through 2052. Using current growth as the model for future estimates, SS will pay full benefits for the forseeable future. Either way, we will have passed the boomer retirement by 2052.

Allowing the politicos to cut benefits/and or raise SS taxes allows them to put off paying back the SS surplus indefinitely. This has been no small part of their plan.

While I recognize that most DUers have little sympathy for someone making 90K+ per year, you may want to ask yourself who more often commands these wages. Yep, big city voters in blue states. Those voters may question why they are paying more SS taxes so that Bill Gates' heirs can some day avoid paying an inheritance tax.

[Itsthetruth]

16. They Probably Will

They probably will propose that in addition to the cuts. Raising the "cap" will make it easier to sell the cuts and get Democratic support in Congress .... that's their hope anyway.

[sadiesworld]

17. It's coming.

While I'm certain * would have loved to have gotten private accounts, that has never been the whole ball of wax. If the politicos are seen as having buried that surplus, it will (in addition to being patently unfair) reinforce the right's opposition to the program. There's more than one way to kill SS.

* has said from day one that he was open to any ideas EXCEPT raising taxes. I pretty much figured that was his goal all along. Of course, he doesn't want to take the blame for it. I sense another filibuster-type "victory" in the air for the dems.

I feel like I'm shouting into the wind on this issue. Maybe I'm just not getting it. :shrug:

[Itsthetruth]

18. No .... You Do Get It

eom