Graham Says GOP Erred By Focusing on Accounts

[paineinthearse]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A18251-2005Mar8.html

Graham Says GOP Erred By Focusing on Accounts

By Mike Allen
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, March 9, 2005; Page A08


Sen. Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.), who has spent weeks attempting to recruit Democratic support for a plan to restructure Social Security, said yesterday that Republicans "made a strategic mistake" by initially focusing on a proposal to create individual investment accounts. The accounts, the centerpiece of President Bush's proposal, would benefit young and poorer workers by letting them use compound interest to help make up for any benefit reductions, Graham said. But he said the accounts, by themselves, will not fix the solvency problem Social Security faces as baby boomers begin to retire.

"We've now got this huge fight over a sideshow," Graham said during a meeting with Washington Post reporters and editors. "It's always been a sideshow, but we sold it as the main event. attacking it as the undoing of Social Security. That's what frustrates me -- that we're off in a ditch over a sideshow, and there's plenty of blame to go around."

The House will take its first formal step toward a Social Security bill today when Ways and Means Committee Chairman Bill Thomas (R-Calif.) holds a hearing about the future of the benefits system. The session will feature testimony from Comptroller General David M. Walker, who heads the Government Accountability Office, and two trustees of the Social Security system, Thomas R. Saving and John L. Palmer. Graham's comments echoed those of Senate Finance Committee Chairman Charles E. Grassley (R-Iowa), who said last week that he wants to encourage Democrats to participate in the debate by first focusing on solvency questions and later taking up the issue of individual accounts.

Graham, who is advancing an alternative to Bush's plan, suggested the same tack. "Let's have a conversation along these lines: Let's make a commitment to permanently find solvency, and see where we go," he said. "Set the accounts aside for a moment. Let's see if we can find solvency." The senator said that various proposals for creating investment accounts could be structured to "blunt the blow" of changes to scheduled benefits. Graham said one way to turn around opposition to Bush's proposal would be to shield lower-income people against market downturns so that they will continue to receive a guaranteed benefit.

more.......

[LynnTheDem]

1. "HEY HO HO social security has to go!"

Could be one of the first times ever that republicans said what they actually meant.

[msongs]

2. Dems need to make it clear: Repubs want to DESTROY SS -->

wreck it completely. the whole thing is a mistake, not just focusing on individual investment accounts first.

it is a confidence man (Bush) scheme to get money into the stock market where it can be lost by individuals and gained by corporations, which benefit no matter how the stock market goes. If it crashes, corporations just declare bankruptcy, and individuals cannot declare bankruptcy so they are double screwed by Bush and the gang.

edited to add: Seems like I read another thread here today that gave a lot of space to other things said by this repub senator, not very nice things.


Msongs
www.msongs.com/liberaltshirts.htm

[alcibiades_mystery]

3. The grand lie:

"The accounts, the centerpiece of President Bush's proposal, would benefit young and poorer workers by letting them use compound interest to help make up for any benefit reductions, Graham said."

A massive load of crap. The so-called "interest" may compound, or it may be lost, or it may go up and down. Compound, my ass.

[ruggerson]

4. Maybe if the fuckers were honest for once in their lives

and said, hey, we disagree with the concept of a government safety net, and we'd like to slowly dismantle it over the next few years, then maybe, just maybe, they would deserve some respect. They'd still lose the fight over the issue, but they wouldn't have also lost their credibility.

It seems they can't be honest however, Republicans are congenitally unable to tell the truth about what motivates them, on this and many other issues. So they end up being deceitful and tell us that we need private accounts because social security is in fiscal trouble.

Run that by us again, George?

[Toucano]

6. Did you just arrive in this country?

"They'd still lose the fight over the issue, but they wouldn't have also lost their credibility."

Credibility hasn't meant anything in Washington in a LONG time. It can't buy anything, so who the hell cares?

Losing the fight, well that's something they understand. That affects bank accounts, wallets, and pockets.

I'm only teasing you about your immigration status, of course.

[wtmusic]

5. Let's find solvency by RAISING TAXES!

Whaddya think of that one, Republicans? Guys? Hello???

[Enquiringkitty]

7. They let "W" take it and run with it....that's the mistake!

[LibDemAlways]

8. I have heard several repuke callers to

the Ed Schultz show the past few days come right and say they oppose social security on principle - that there should be no safety net for anybody. One guy said if people don't save enough for retirement, that's their problem. Schultz reminded him that people pay into SS all their working lives. The guy wouldn't budge. Said it's "socialism" and should be abolished. Period.

Repuke philosophy in a nutshell - I've got mine. Screw you.

[aint_no_life_nowhere]

9. Bush trying to explain private accounts LOL

"Because the — all which is on the table begins to address the big cost drivers. For example, how benefits are calculate, for example, is on the table; whether or not benefits rise based upon wage increases or price increases. There's a series of parts of the formula that are being considered. And when you couple that, those different cost drivers, affecting those — changing those with personal accounts, the idea is to get what has been promised more likely to be — or closer delivered to what has been promised. Does that make any sense to you? It's kind of muddled. Look, there's a series of things that cause the — like, for example, benefits are calculated based upon the increase of wages, as opposed to the increase of prices. Some have suggested that we calculate — the benefits will rise based upon inflation, as opposed to wage increases. There is a reform that would help solve the red if that were put into effect. In other words, how fast benefits grow, how fast the promised benefits grow, if those — if that growth is affected, it will help on the red."

—George W. Bush, explaining his plan to save Social Security, Speech delivered in Tampa, Fla., Feb. 4, 2005

[NYC]

11. If you typed that accurately,

I'm speechless.

[aint_no_life_nowhere]

12. I didn't type it - I cut and pasted it from a Bushisms site

It's the third Bushism down:

http://politicalhumor.about.com/library/blbushisms.htm

[NYC]

13. What swirling nonsense.

He didn't say anything.

[JCMach1]

10. Damn, I hate it when I agree with Graham...

Maybe he should think about changing parties...