[ Post a Response | The Liberal Party Discussion Board ]
Posted by Ellen S., Durant But a cap on income limits is mentioned in a statement by AARP CEO Bill Novelli. He said: "There are reasonable moderate changes we can make to achieve solvency and fiscal soundness, just as has been done before...A couple of examples that would, combined, get us over half way toward solvency, and there are other possible options to consider: Yes, indeed, the President did not give the real picture of Social Security! The nonpartisan Congressonal Budget Office estimates are more optimistic than the most recent projections made by the Social Security Board of Trustees, given as credence by the President for his proposal. According to the CBO: Social Security can pay full benefits until 2052 when the trust fund will be exhausted. And even without the trust fund, Social Security can continue paying out three quarters of planned benefits forever. So if we do nothing at all, the system can pay full benefits for the next 50 years, and never go bankrupt. Tiny changes in the payroll formula would protect the system in perpetuity. RE: Where do the Democrats stand: Lincoln (AR): "I'm opposed to what the President presumably wants to do. It puts in jeopardy a program that is vital...and is misleading to young people as to what they are going to end up with." Minority Leader Reid (NV), who shared the response to the President's proposal with Pelosi (CA): "Bush's Social Security sounds more like Russian roulette than reform." Kerry (Mass): "Every American desserves a real plan to improve retirement security - not weaken it."
on February 13, 2005, 8:06 pm, in reply to "Re: President Bush's Social Security proposal"
152.163.101.8
Not sure what type of cap you are referring to, Richard.
Restore total wages taxed by Social Security to 90% of nationwide earnings. This would move the cap from $90,000 in 2005 to $140,000 - perhaps phased in over a decade. It would lower the projected shortfall by some 43%...
Diversity Trust Fund investments in a total market index fund, like most pension funds, to get a higher return, which could fix about 15% of the problem..."
Novelli also observed, "Reasonable steps such as these, including possibly adjusting benefits, are enough to strengthen Social Security for the long term..."
EG:
(1)The reality is that privatization will encrease the national debt by trillions of dollars.
(2) The President's suggestion actually puts Social Security in jeopardy.
(3) It is misleading to young people as to what benefits/retirement income to expect.
(4) While hoping the stock market makes up the difference after lessening the Social Security program benefits as we know it, it is also based on funding the transiton with borrowing that increases the national debt by trillions.
(5) The Bush administration is misleading the public into believing that there is an immediate crisis. The truth is Social Security is in beter shape than it has been for much of its history.
I have to say that, from what I've heard and read, they have been quite vocal on this issue. They stated that Bush's proposal to divert Social Security revenues into private investments accounts was dangerous and that there were better ways to fix the program.
While several reports also indicate that they - as they should and must - want to work together in nonpartisan fashion and cooperation to do so, included below are some excerpts of statements opposing the President's proposal from individual Democratic senators:
Conrad (ND): "I will not be part of unraveling the committment to Social Security based on gutting the benefits and hoping the stock market makes up the diference and funding the transition with borrowing."
Nelson (FL): "I will oppose diverting money from the Social Security trust fund. I will fight against cuts to Social Security benefits. I will fight against any plan that relies on massive borrowing and increases the debt. And I will fight to protect this program that provides a safe and reliable source of retirement income for millions of Americans."
Message Thread:
« Back to thread