Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Social Security Goals May Clash (with other GOP goals)

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Editorials & Other Articles Donate to DU
 
papau Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-11-05 11:02 AM
Original message
Social Security Goals May Clash (with other GOP goals)

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-so...
Social Security Goals May Clash
The president is likely to propose reductions in the growth of benefits along with his personal account plan. Such a package could draw fire.
By Ronald Brownstein
Times Staff Writer

January 11, 2005

WASHINGTON In restructuring Social Security, President Bush has not one goal, but two.

And as the debate begins over transforming the giant public pension program for the elderly, one of the critical questions facing the White House is whether the two goals will complement or undermine each other.

So far, most of the attention has focused on the president's push to divert part of the Social Security payroll tax into private accounts that individuals could invest in stocks or bonds a plan Bush is expected to promote today.

But White House officials signal that he's also likely to propose reductions in the growth of Social Security benefits meant to close the imbalance between the system's long-term revenue and obligations. <snip>

Increasingly, it appears Bush also could face the opposite risk: that the personal accounts could erode support for the benefit reductions.<snip>

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
papau Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-11-05 11:04 AM
Response to Original message
1. In GOP, Resistance On Social Security
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A64196-20...

In GOP, Resistance On Social Security
Bush Plan Raises Fear of Voter Anger
By Jim VandeHei and Mike Allen
Washington Post Staff Writers
Tuesday, January 11, 2005; Page A01


Many Republicans are expressing reservations about the political wisdom of President Bush's vision for restructuring Social Security, as the White House today intensifies its campaign to restructure the entitlement program for the retired and disabled.

Bush, who relishes challenging the conventional wisdoms of Washington, has privately counseled Republicans that partially privatizing Social Security will be a boon for the GOP and has urged skeptics to hold fire until he builds a public case for change. But several influential Republicans are warning that Bush's plan could backfire on the party in next year's elections, especially if the plan includes cuts in benefits.

Most alarming to White House officials, some congressional Republicans are panning the president's plan -- even before it is unveiled. "Why stir up a political hornet's nest . . . when there is no urgency?" said Rep. Rob Simmons (Conn.), who represents a competitive district. "When does the program go belly up? 2042. I will be dead by then."

Simmons said there is no way he will support Bush's idea of allowing younger Americans to divert some of their payroll taxes into private accounts, especially when there are more pressing needs, such as shoring up Medicare and providing armor to U.S. troops in Iraq.

Rep. Jack Kingston (Ga.), a member of the GOP leadership, said 15 to 20 House Republicans agree with Simmons, although others say the number is closer to 40. "Just convincing our guys not to be timid is going to be a big struggle," he said. "It's going to take a lot of convincing," which he said can be done.<snip>

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Demit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-11-05 11:20 AM
Response to Original message
2. "the giant public pension program"? Is that how they'd like us to think
of it now? So they can segue into attacking the idea of "defined benefits" and how that is a pass concept? Looks like one of Brownstein's slimier pieces.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
papau Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-11-05 01:36 PM
Response to Reply #2
3. I believe he is refering to the PBGC premium that insures company
Edited on Tue Jan-11-05 01:44 PM by papau
pension plans.

"the giant public pension program" is a poor phrase with poorly chosed words to use as it must be read as

The Giant insurance program....for defined benefit pensions - BUT

that article on PBGC rates http://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/11/business/11pension.ht... is not the above article!



If an early edition of the above used "the giant public pension program" - they have cleaned it up now!

:-)

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri Nov 28th 2014, 03:45 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Editorials & Other Articles Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC