Social Security turns 70 years old today and Democrats are, apparently, determined to see the program go another 70 years (if it could even make it that long) without any meaningful reform.
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - On the eve of Social Security's 70th anniversary, Democrats said on Saturday they are ready to move toward revamping the financially troubled retirement program but warned against stripping away benefits to retirees and relying on private accounts for funding."We have a moral obligation to stand up and protect Social Security for the next 70 years and beyond -- that means stopping privatization and dropping partisan demands for private accounts," said Rep. John Salazar, a Colorado Democrat, in his response to President George W. Bush's radio address. . . .
"Social Security has never failed to pay promised benefits, and Democrats will fight to make sure that Republicans do not turn a guaranteed benefit into a guaranteed gamble," said House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi of California.
"Democrats stand ready to address the challenges facing Social Security's solvency, but this cannot begin until Republicans begin talking about ways to make Social Security stronger, not weaker," she said.
You know what really amazes me? The fact that Democrats are trying to spin private accounts, which would not only substantially increase the dividends Americans see from the money they pay into Social Security but also lock that money away from greedy politicians who would use it to fund other government programs, into something that is "risky" for Americans to engage in.
What is so risky about it? At the turn of the last century some 52% of Americans owned stocks. Breaking it down a bit, 80% of white Americans and 65% of black Americans already invest their retirement funds in the stock market. If one were to remove children and indigent Americans from those totals so that they only reflected the average tax-paying, working citizen I'm sure the figures would be much higher.
Yet because Nancy Pelosi and her Democrat cohorts tell us that the investment of retirement funds in the stock market is too risky for Americans and their Social Security money we're supposed to believe them?
Give me a break. After all, what the President is calling for isn't all that different from the retirement plan Rep. Pelosi and other members of Congress have given themselves. Taking that same kind of system and giving it to Americans and their Social Security contributions is an idea Hillary Clinton seemed to support back in 1994.
Rep. Salazar referred to private accounts as a "partisan" demand, but what are we to think of Democrat opposition to allowing more control for citizens over money they pay into Social Security when said opposition doesn't seem to be based on the plans themselves but rather on who is suggesting them?
By Rob Port of Say Anything.
Permalink | Linking Blogs | Sphere: Related Content | Digg this! | FARK It!
Filed under:
Comments (10)
>Ah, but what if t... (Below threshold)1. Posted by billbill | August 14, 2005 12:52 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
>
Ah, but what if they change the "promise?"
I've seen the rules changed twice that I know of. When I was going to college, they paided "surviving children" benefits untill you were 18, or 21 if you went to college. My second year, they changed the rule to only pay while you were in school, no summers. A year after I graduated, they changed again, benefts untill you are 18. Sorry.
The future if SS? They will end up raising the retirement age again, and add means testing.
1. Posted by billbill | August 14, 2005 12:52 PM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on August 14, 2005 12:52
2. Posted by Jeff Blogworthy | August 14, 2005 12:54 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
What infuriates me is not that Democrats are against privatizing SS. That is to be expected. It seems the Republicans don't really want it either. I get the impression that they have all but given up on the issue. SS reform without privatization is no reform at all.
2. Posted by Jeff Blogworthy | August 14, 2005 12:54 PM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on August 14, 2005 12:54
3. Posted by Eneils Bailey | August 14, 2005 1:06 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
"We have a moral obligation..tada...tada..."
Don't want to hear any democrats preach to me about moral obligations. I have already had my big laugh today. Saw Nancy Pelosi try to blink her eyes.
3. Posted by Eneils Bailey | August 14, 2005 1:06 PM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on August 14, 2005 13:06
4. Posted by joe | August 14, 2005 2:10 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
You might add that many thoudands of people, mostly government employees, don't pay Social Security taxes and are not in the system. They have their own system that invests (horror of horrors) in stocks.
Why are we barred by law from the same option?
4. Posted by joe | August 14, 2005 2:10 PM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on August 14, 2005 14:10
5. Posted by Will Franklin | August 14, 2005 3:16 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
A sad look at what could become of our economy minus reform:
http://www.investors.com/editorial/issues03.asp
5. Posted by Will Franklin | August 14, 2005 3:16 PM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on August 14, 2005 15:16
6. Posted by Les Nessman | August 14, 2005 4:34 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
I'm putting as much as I can into my 401k provided through my job. I do this by sacrificing things I want right now so I can contribute more into my retirement fund.
However, I think that in 40 years or less, SS will be so eff'ed up that the politicians will look around and say,
"Hey, look at how much Les has saved! He's got a pile of retirement money. He has more than 'enough'. He has more than his 'fair share'. Let's reduce or eliminate his SS benefits while continuing to pay people who didn't plan ahead." And so all that money that I paid in to SS for all that time will be wasted. Plus, since I will (hopefully) have a nice nest egg saved up, I think there will be a significant tax increase on us 'rich' retirees. This is going to happen to all of us who are being responsible with our retirement and savings.
I will not be suprised for events to unfold this way; in fact I mostly expect it. But, knowing myself, I will still be mightily pissed; possibly to the point of doing something 'unfortunate' in my geezer years. I'm not sure what else I can do.
You have all been warned.
6. Posted by Les Nessman | August 14, 2005 4:34 PM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on August 14, 2005 16:34
7. Posted by Just Me | August 14, 2005 5:24 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
This line made me laugh: Social Security has never failed to pay promised benefits
As if willing the problem away makes it go away and keeps SS solvent.
Partial privatization is the way to go.
The only options open to the dems are in reality to prove the SS was really just a welfare program all along, and what ticks me off is that when they add means testing, it will in reality punish those who bothered to save, and in the future discourage people from saving.
Hardly the type of system you want to set up.
7. Posted by Just Me | August 14, 2005 5:24 PM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on August 14, 2005 17:24
8. Posted by -S- | August 14, 2005 5:25 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
What Les Nessman wrote. So many of us cannot rely on much any in politics opines...when they opine, that is. And that's the pivotal problem, in that by the time politicians respond to any issue, it's long after possibilities to effectively change conditions are passed and they then speak as if they're making grave changes, usually by means of tweaking ethics torturously. Why NOT allow for private investing, and now? I wish I could recoup the many lost years of earnings before there were 401Ks, just for starters.
8. Posted by -S- | August 14, 2005 5:25 PM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on August 14, 2005 17:25
9. Posted by Darleen | August 14, 2005 10:54 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Yep Joe, ya got it right
I'm a government employee. I don't pay into Soc Sec at all (only the medicare portion). I have a fully refundable retirement account (the $$ are in MY NAME, as asset I can take with me if I leave govenment employment or let sit until retirement age. If I die, my heirs get it).
Amazing how the Dems don't want the "little people" to have what they have, eh?
9. Posted by Darleen | August 14, 2005 10:54 PM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on August 14, 2005 22:54
10. Posted by OC Chuck | August 15, 2005 2:26 AM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
More from the party with no good ideas:
"The American people are too stoopid to be able to manage their own money." Ok, you got any better ideas??? -crickets-
I hope to be in the same boat as Les (as far as being a 'rich' retiree). My company's retirement system will cut over from a funded pension to an annual payout into my 401k next year. Not too popular with the employees, but it removes a ton of future liability for the company - a move to put the company on a better financial footing, more viable company, I get to keep my job.
Any time something bad needs to be fixed, it involves pain. Its much cheaper to fix things early on than to wait until disaster strikes.
FIX IT NOW!!!!!
10. Posted by OC Chuck | August 15, 2005 2:26 AM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on August 15, 2005 02:26