|
| SOCIAL SECURITY SHELL GAME 2 |
| Tuesday, January 18, 2005 |
| Democrats DO have a Social Security plan
I misspoke last week when I said neither President Bush nor his Democratic opponents in Congress have a specific plan to reform Social Security and keep it solvent, but at least the President has an idea that forms the basis of a plan. In fact, Democrats do have a plan. I revealed it several years ago, and it's time for a reminder. They just have no intention of disclosing their plan in the midst of today's debate over Social Security reform.
To lay the groundwork for understanding the Democratic plan, imagine this hypothetical questioning of a Democratic leader (DL) who is unable to either lie or evade questions - kind of like Jim Carry in the movie "Liar, Liar."
Q: Do you doubt the Social Security administration's projection that the payroll tax won't be able to meet Social Security payment obligations in 2018?
DL: No, I don't doubt that?
Q: Then, of course, Social Security will begin to access its trust fund - that is, the treasury will begin to pay back the money it borrowed from Social Security. Those repayments will serve as a temporary, additional funding source for Social Security. SSA projects that source will be tapped out by 2042. Do you reject any of that?
DL: The 2042 date is not certain. CBO projects it to be 2052, but I concede that it is only temporary.
Q: SSA further projects that once the trust fund is dried up, the payroll tax will be able to fund only about 70 percent of today's level of benefits. Do you accept that projection?
DL: Yes, I do. That's not in question.
Q: At that point, whenever it is - 2042 or 2052 or some other year - would you agree that the Democratic Party would oppose a 30 percent reduction in Social Security retirement benefits?
DL: I think it's pretty safe to say we would.
Q: Would you also say that you would oppose a payroll tax increase on all workers, large enough to bridge the gap - keeping in mind that the payroll tax is already the biggest tax paid by the bottom 70 percent of American income earners.
DL: I suspect it would be politically hazardous, if not political suicide, to support such a tax increase.
Q: Some have suggested that we extend the life of Social Security by raising or eliminating the income ceiling on which the payroll tax is assessed. Is that acceptable to you?
DL: Of course.
Q: The President's spokesman, Dan Bartlett, says such a plan would only extend the solvency of Social Security by four years. What is your response to that?
DL: I don't trust the President, but I will concede that raising the ceiling is probably not a permanent solution.
Q: During the period that the treasury if paying back the Social Security trust fund, we will in effect be subsidizing Social Security with other taxes, most notably the income tax. Is that a fair statement?
DL: Yes, although the subsidy is actually the repayment of a debt. So, at that point I wouldn't call it a subsidy.
Q: Fair enough. After the debt is repaid, would you agree that it would be unacceptable to continue to subsidize Social Security with the income tax?
DL: No, I would not agree with that at all. It would be completely acceptable to me.
There you have it. That is the plan. There can be no other. Once you have eliminated all other options, the only thing left is to permanently subsidize Social Security with the income tax. There is no question in my mind that this is the Democratic Party's long-term plan for Social Security. The game plan is as follows:
1. Stop any meaningful reform until well after 2018.
2. Let the people get accustomed to the "temporary" subsidy while the trust fund is being depleted - a period of 24 to 34 years.
3. After the trust fund is dry, argue that continuing the subsidy is the most logical thing to do - after all, it has worked for 24 years. Why change now?
If the strategy works, and the odds are better than 50-50 that it will, not only will the Democratic Party maintain a system whereby millions of people are primarily dependent on the government for a big portion of their retirement income, but much of that income will be generated by progressive taxes. That will constitute a major political victory for the party whose ideological core is the use of government to redistribute wealth.
And that, ladies and gentlemen, is the Democrat's plan to "save Social Security."
Ralph Bristol |
posted by Jack Mercer @ 1/18/2005 08:40:00 AM   |
|
|
|
|
| About Me |
|
Name: Jack Mercer
Home:
About Me:
See my complete profile
"Snipet" (pronounced: snipe - it) is not a word.It is a derivative of two words: "Snipe" and "Snippet".
Miriam Webster defines Snipe as: to aim a carping or snide attack, or: to shoot at exposed individuals (as of an enemy's forces) from a usually concealed point of vantage.
Miriam Webster defines Snippet as: : a small part, piece, or thing; especially : a brief quotable passage.
In short, "Snipets" are brief, snide shots at exposed situations from a concealed vantage point.
WARNING! With due reverence to the Bill of Rights and the First Amendment there is NO comment policy on the News Snipet.
|
| Other things |
| Archives |
|
| Politics |
|
| Template by |
|
|
nipples adult sex stories
pooping female domination galleries
cheerleader bjsex
singles how many square feet in an acre
shaved transsexual resources
scat puffy nipples pictures
upskirts masturbate god kitten
Motherson voltaire femdom
horsesex everything bbw
schoolgirl hunk male