Some memo must have come down over the past few days at Fox News that they now have to start blasting Bush. Or maybe they just got bought out by CNN. Either way, this is going to start getting annoying rather quickly. The latest foray into the "Bush has done everything wrong" world comes from Martin Frost who decides to attack Bush on Social Security reform.

One of the most important things for a politician to know is when to declare victory. President Bush canÂ’t figure that out when it comes to dealing with the difficult issue of Social Security.

The president has done an admirable job of elevating the Social Security solvency issue to one that the public understands. He has talked about it repeatedly since the beginning of his second term in January, and the public now accepts that something needs to be done to keep this vital program solvent when it starts to run low on money in 2042.

The president could now join with Democrats in proposing some basic measures that will save enough money to keep the program solvent for at least the next 75 years. That would be a real victory for the administration and for Congress.

OK, let me stop right there and translate for you. "The President could now cave in on what he has been pushing for and do what the Democrats want: raise taxes and cut benefits. By continuing to do this, we can ignore the fact that the Social Security program is fundamentally flawed and must be changed." That is the only thing he could mean by "join with Democrats" because that is the only thing the Democrats have proposed. Now, whether or not private accounts are the way to go, I just don't see how paying more and getting less is a better deal. Maybe some of you libs out there can finally explain that to me? Nah, didn't think so.

Unfortunately, the president is incapable of declaring victory. He stubbornly persists in trying to sell the public his privatization scheme -- which has nothing to do with Social SecurityÂ’s long-term solvency and which the public roundly rejects. That was clear once again in his press conference on May 31.

Again, this author must have completly disconnected with reality. How is it that Bush's proposal to fix social security has nothing to do with social security's long-term solvency? I'm pretty sure that's exactly what it is designed to fix. But of course to admit that would be to admit that people can control their own money and their own destinies. And the libs certainly can't have that. It would stop their resolute march toward socialism.

And where is this public that has roundly rejected the idea? I've seen union bosses reject the idea for no more good reason than it's not a Democrat idea. I've seen the AARP reject the idea for the same reason. I've seen some elderly people reject the idea of doing ANYTHING to social security because they've been lied to and told that someone is going to take their benefits. Other than that, I've talked with a LOT of people who seem to agree that change is needed and letting people manage their own retirement is a good idea.

The outline of an appropriate compromise has been obvious for months now. If Congress would do a combination of increasing the retirement age and increasing the amount of wages subject to Social Security taxation, the program would be solvent for the foreseeable future.

Well, at least he admits what I've been saying all along. The Democrats only idea to "fix" social security is to raise taxes and cut benefits. And yes, raising the retirement age is effectively cutting benefits.

Raising the retirement age will be seen as a cut in benefits and increasing the amount of wages subject to Social Security taxation will be seen as a tax increase, but no one ever said fixing Social Security would be easy. However, these changes are relatively modest when compared with tax increases or benefit cuts that would be necessary years from now if Congress and the president fail to act this year or next.

This is almost laughable. "Yes, this is raising taxes and cutting benefits, but not as much as we would have to if we don't do SOMETHING." DUH! But that doesn't mean that raising taxes and cutting benefits is the right thing to do. Again, I challenge the libs to tell me why taking more of my money and giving less of it back is a good thing. Do you just think I'm not responsible enough to plan for my own retirement?

I don't think Bush's plan stands a chance of getting passed. At least not by him. But I do applaud Bush for getting the Democrats to at least admit there is a problem. That's certainly more than they were willing to do before the election. Now we just have to come up with a solution that doesn't call for taking more and giving less, we'll have this whole thing licked. And who knows, it may take some sacrifice to get a new program rolling. But if, in the long run, the program is signaficantly better than what we have, I feel that it would be worth the time, effort and money. And any new plan couldn't be much worse than the status quo.

Posted by: Drew at 08:26 AM | Comments (18) | Add Comment
Post contains 910 words, total size 5 kb.

1 F- Fox news Then. When will the people turn on the media? I want to see this filthy hanging from lamp posts.

Posted by: Filthy Allah at June 02, 2005 08:40 AM (yBHNA)

2 I'm sure I made this point before, but if they simply raised the restrictions on what Social Security is invested in, the Social Security "pool" could grow at a better rate than a Treasury Bill. With rates so low, and being handcuffed to only this investment, they've been missing out on generating real growth in the pool. The solvency issue would be much better taken care of instead of threatening citizens with benefit cuts and higher taxes. Mind you, Social Security is actually pretty generous to begin with. Countries like Canada only pay out half of what the U.S. does (which is pretty shocking for a country most consider liberal).

Posted by: Venom at June 02, 2005 08:51 AM (dbxVM)

3 Social Security privatization has nothing to do with solvency. White House officials have said that. That's no secret. As for the rest of what he's proposing, that's a different story. But they're not wrong when they say that privatization has nothing to do with solvency.

Posted by: Fargus at June 02, 2005 08:52 AM (NX1F9)

4 Goooooood Fox! Make sure Bush knows MSM wants him to start taking steps towards my plans and make money with growing government retirement pay leftovers. The Finns political agenda, Social S. §1: - pay way more (retirement pay) to people who work to an older age, so people work too long and retire so close to death you don't have to pay 'em much (Original political agenda is in post 084656.php)

Posted by: A fatwad Finn at June 02, 2005 08:58 AM (lGolT)

5 I could tolerate a raising of the income limit for Fica contributions. Raising the retirement age over 67 I don't like. However I was wondering about why the President is so insistant that private accounts be part of the solution. If you apply the same logic 16 retirees for each worker to the mutual fund and stock markets you begin to see why this part is crucial. When all the boomers start drawing those mutual funds down and selling stocks to support themselved there won't be enough of us X'ers and nexters to pick up the slack (unless they start paying us a lot more). Sell orders will outnumber buys just by demographics. If instituional investors can't or won't pick up the slack we are looking at a bear market during that period. I'm not sure how bad but the same conditions that are hurting fica will also affect other things.

Posted by: Howie at June 02, 2005 09:01 AM (D3+20)

6 The average investor doesn't have a clue as to how to invest their funds. Most, if left to their own devices, blow themselves up at some point.

Posted by: Venom at June 02, 2005 09:18 AM (dbxVM)

7 That's why my 401K is so great. I have a variety of funds to choose from and the facts on all of them as well as an advisor to give me whatever advice I need. Heck, I'd be happy if they'd just do away with Social Security altogether and let me put the money in my 401K.

Posted by: Drew at June 02, 2005 09:20 AM (Ml8z/)

8 Aww, you dingbats got your panties in a twist because Fox news levels a lil bit of criticism at Bushie? Is anyone above criticism? In a free and democratic country there MUST be open criticism of the president especially when he does something stupid, and especially from the media; otherwise we might as well recognize that we live in in a fascist country. 1668-Guess what that is and it's not your lucky lotto numbers.

Posted by: The Bush Cutter at June 02, 2005 09:23 AM (h0FT+)

9 Criticism is fine. Neither of the morons I've quoted have had a clue as to what they were talking about. Similar to you, I'd guess.

Posted by: Drew at June 02, 2005 09:25 AM (Ml8z/)

10 "The President could now cave in on what he has been pushing for and do what the Democrats want: raise taxes and cut benefits. " Democrats don't want benefit cuts.

Posted by: actus at June 02, 2005 09:41 AM (UkIRz)

11 "Raising the retirement age will be seen as a cut in benefits..." How exactly do you figure?

Posted by: Drew at June 02, 2005 09:43 AM (Ml8z/)

12 Howie As a hedge fund manager for the past 10 years I understand why you think that way but it's not true. The automatic institutional selling will be immediately "priced in" to each fund. The easiest way to do this is to only offer income producing funds that pay dividends. Yes, they are boring and they will underperform other mutual funds but you'll get your 10% yearly return. I know it aint much, most funds will get you from 12%-14% but it's safer.

Posted by: Capitalist Infidel at June 02, 2005 10:03 AM (xkIHW)

13 Dear Mr infidel. So you think My 401k and profit sharing programs will be OK during this period?? I'm pretty well spread out over about 7 different funds in my 401k. My employers profitsharing I don't manage but it makes pretty good money. You can see why I might worry. Also I notice since you are in the business you pretty much have to disagree but I feel better anyway. Thanks a lot. I just don't want to get caught retiring right after a big long bear market. Oh well I got about 30 more years to think about it (yuck 30 years). Also it's not you, I take everything with a grain of salt it's just the way I am.

Posted by: Howie at June 02, 2005 10:22 AM (D3+20)

14 ""Raising the retirement age will be seen as a cut in benefits..." How exactly do you figure?" Because you get less benefits, because you get them for a shorter time. THink about it. If it means it saves money, that means that it's a cut in benefits.

Posted by: actus at June 02, 2005 04:41 PM (UkIRz)

15 Drew, you're an idiot. Cuts in benefits is EXACTLY what bushie is proposing. It's already been proven time after time that to resolve the shortfall coming in 27 years, is to raise the income cap on social security tax above $90K. Now if no one making above that is currently paying any SS tax, how is that increasing taxes. What a nitwit.

Posted by: deccles at June 02, 2005 04:50 PM (UCtX/)

16 Isn't it amazing how, when someone doesn't have the facts on their side, they resort to name calling? When someone begins to pay more in taxes, it is a tax increase. Where they started from doesn't matter. If I pay 0 taxes, then I pay $100, I have experienced a tax increase. I'd think even a liberal could figure that out.

Posted by: Drew at June 02, 2005 10:28 PM (zEdFo)

17 The most sure fire way to help fix social security is to force 100% of Americans to be part of it. No more special retirement funds for any lying, cheating, stealing politician (and that is every politician ) If Bush and Cheney and the rest of Washington big wigs have to draw their retirement from the same pool, you can bet they will figure away to get money into it. (Or then again, they might just figure out how to steal more money from us.)

Posted by: Butch at June 03, 2005 08:19 AM (Gqhi9)

18 If people are taxed for social security for those amounts over 90K but are not awarded greater social security benefits for those amounts, then social security is being turned into a welfare program with income redistribution characteristics rather than a retirement benefit. Increasing the welfare and income redistribution efforts will undermine public support for social security.

Posted by: SPQR at June 03, 2005 09:57 PM (xauGB)

Hide Comments | Add Comment