Should Democrats offer a SS plan?

[Hamlette]

Carville apparently criticized the party for failing to offer its own solution to the SS problem. Josh Marshall has been saying we should not offer one, at least not now.

Brooks (why do I read him? he makes me crazy) in is column today had very harsh words for the way the GOP handled SS reform. He mostly misses the point but does say:

"They (the GOP) didn't appreciate how beloved Social Security is, and how much they would have to show they love it, too, before voters would trust them to reform it. In their efforts to create a risk-taking, dynamic society, they didn't appreciate how many people, including conservatives, value security and safety. (edit: don't you love how the GOP puses security and safety when they want to fight wars but say it is not that big a deal when it comes to food and medicine?)

. . .

But Republican leaders have never really developed the skills required for cross-party horse-trading. Today's Republicans emerged in response to the ideological politics of the 1960's and were forged in the anti-political populism of the 1994 revolution. These anti-political creatures of conviction find sticking to orthodoxy easier than the art of compromise."

Then Brooks goes on to list Democratic blunders on Social Security (ha ha). Really, there is only one, according to Brooks. Failure to offer an alternative (he calls it concession).

His article settled the debate for me. He was talking about Bennett's proposal which is WAY this side of Bush's. What we've got is the republicans compromising with themselves while we watch.

As a lawyer the first thing they teach you about negotiation is never be the first side to name a number. Until Bush tells us what his plans are, that is wise advice.

Carville missed the call on this one. Don't you think?

[babylonsister]

1. I don't think so. Repugs haven't offered up a plan

yet; both sides seem to be waiting to see who blinks first.

[Greybnk48]

2. NO, they're trying to bait the Dems to do just that. n/t

[adwon]

3. Actually

Carville has a point about a solution. Why not make private retirement accounts more accessible (which steals a big point from W) in exchange for means testing if a person's account does well? It's not a compromise at all, but it is an alternative. The job of the opposition party is not just to oppose, but also to propose positive legislation that actually has a chance of working, as opposed to snake-oil schemes so beloved by the current administration.

[papau]

9. No claw back makes it a few trillion more in Debt - not a "solution"that

"works"

At least it does not work until all the Bush tax cuts are killed so we can afford it.

:-)

[adwon]

12. Claw back?

[papau]

18. Taken from Brit/Can/Aussie usage - now used in US also - means

one calculates an initial benefit - and then the gov takes away (claw backs) part of the benefit under some set of rules.

So an account balance that turns out - at retirement - to have been a loan and not really your money - is said to have suffered a claw-back.

[adwon]

19. Okay, thanks

Pretty damn descriptive.

[LynnTheDem]

13. Keep tax cuts temporary for the richest 1% of Americans, would fully fund

SS into the 22nd century.

Now why doesn't bush care enough about the American people to do that?

No, he'd rather gut SS and reduce benefits.

FUCK him and FUCK that. We have a plan; it's called Social Security.

Period.

[adwon]

14. I meant private accounts

independent of Social Security. Kind of a 'the more the merrier' thing. Since defined benefit pension plans are going the way of the dodo, maybe it's time the government took up the slack.

As for what W is thinking, I'm sorry...I just can't channel crazy :(

[Hamlette]

20. why would you means test a "private" account

and how is making "private retirement accounts" more accessible stealking a point from Bush? Do you mean private SS accounts? By making them more accessible do you mean allowing people to take the money out before retirement?

I'm confused.

And, the loyal opposition HAS offered an alternative. It's SS in its present form. We need to tweek it, just as we did in the 80s. One part raising of the income cap, one part higher taxes, maybe some means testing.

While we're at it, I've heard conservatives SCREAM about the government investing in the stock market. They are against it. Anyone know why?

[adwon]

22. Clarification

I meant expanding the accessibility of private accounts for everybody while leaving Social Security alone. It's not a terribly well thought out idea, I admit. The essence of it would be the bedrock of Social Security, as we know it now, supplemented by voluntary contributions made by individuals. I was shooting for fixing the fixed income problem that many people on Social Security tend to have. My idea would be completely voluntary and separate from Social Security.

It could steal W's thunder in two ways. First, all the carping about the low savings rate. One of the selling points for W's 'idea' is that it would boost the national savings rate. Well, this would likely boost it without risking the golden goose. Second, the personal accountability aspect. If you don't want to contribute to a private retirement fund, so what? You still get Social Security. Assuming this idea was fleshed out and written by someone with a clue, it would offer people an honest choice, rather than coercion into some snake-oil scheme.

The means testing point was for Social Security. Let's say my idea was put into practice and someone's retirement account, when they got to retirement age, was quite healthy. Their Social Security benefits could be subject to a means test and reduced if it's determined that the private account was more than sufficient.

In the end, I'm not talking about 'fixing' Social Security. I'm not terribly concerned because I'm not convinced their baseline assumptions regarding population growth and taxation are correct. If it helps, my idea was an orange to the administration's apple.

[bigtree]

4. We did

We have called for the repeal of Bush's tax cuts to the wealthy which could more than pay for any shoring up of the system. It's ridiculous to talk about searching for a solution to the SS 'crisis' that has been manufactured by Bush's looting of our treasury for his givaway to his wealthy benefactors. What we need is a shift in priorities away from Bush's mindless militarism and his corporate patronage. Then there will be more than enough resources to get on with the support and assistance of the needs and concerns of workaday Americans.

[Disfronted]

5. I think they should

...release a plan showing how we can maintain benefits for SS indefinitely (and not raise the deficit) simply by expanding FICA to wealthier Americans. Let the public contrast that to Bush's risky proposition.

But as others said, they should wait until the Republicans release their's first, so the contrast will be greater.

[papau]

6. That is the solution - but the GOP must climb on first if it is to pass.

:-)

[LynnTheDem]

7. NO. We did already; years ago.

Period.

[BlueFlu]

8. A Democrat has offered an alternative plan...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A18710-2005Mar8.html

[BillZBubb]

10. NO! NO! NO! NO! Do I need to repeat it again?

The WORST thing the Dems could do at this time is to offer any kind of deal to the Repugs. Remember 1993. Did the Repugs offer any alternative to the Clinton Health Proposal? What happened in 1994?

The Repugs actually gained control of Congress by killing the issue. It was absolutely the worst public policy move, but the public (sheeple) ate it up.

The Democrats can turn the tables this year by standing on their principles and offering not one inch of ground on Social Security. The minute the Dems offer any sort of alternative is the minute the Repugs keep control of Congress. It's that simple.

[TomClash]

11. It ain't broke so why fix it?

If SS is so "broke" then why is it running a $157b surplus and why does the fund have 1.7 TRILLION in Assets?

Take a look at this table from the SSA:

http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/STATS/table4a3.html

Here's the alternative I'll offer - for every increase in the payroll tax or decline in benefits or "privatization of accounts" one Senator or Representative goes to the Political Guillotine.

This is the front line of the class war. No pasaran!

[bklyncowgirl]

15. I've always believed that you can't beat something with nothing.

But in this case until Bush comes clean about what his own plans are the Democrats should just sit still.

When the Democrats do come up with a plan it should concentrate on solving the solvency issue with as little damage as possible done to both the elderly and middle and lower income taxpayers.

[European Socialist]

16. yes-pay shortages from general fund.

SS is a great social program since it helps out moderate and low income people the most.

[moondust]

17. No.

Doing so would make it an either|or proposition. The merits and shortcomings of both would be lost in the political maneuvering/smear jobs/contest.

[SoCalDem]

21. This is their "Briar Oatch" offensive, Don't fall for it

They are trying to trick our legislators into fooling with the plan. They put out the most offensive outrageous ideas, in hopes that our people will fall for it and come up with a counter plan...then they can tinker with the plan WE come up with, claim it and every time from now on that anything "happens", they will say, "Well it WAS the DEMOCRAT plan, you know... We only went along with them so that SOMETHING would get done"...:puke:

Our people just need to say.. "We have no NEW plan, because the one we have is JUST fine"... Bush's people just need to follow some personal responsibility and put the money back into it that they used to give their rich pals a tax cut.. They gave FICA surplus..there was NO INCOME TAX surplus.. It was all FICA,.,. People under 90K gave their hard-earned money to the rich people.