Unlike Bush's plan to allow investments in stocks and bonds, the House Republican plan would place into the accounts only U.S. government bonds similar to those now held by the Social Security trust fund.
well now, that doesn't solve the problem at all does it.
these bonds which if we don't have the money to pay off social security won't be worth squat.
this whole plan pretty much is like the one they did back in the 80s. a patch to put the burden on some other shlubs in some other congress.
but the democrats who didn't want Howard Dean and Dick dubrin to distract from the issues fought back
Public opinion polls show Bush's plan to allow workers to divert Social Security taxes into investment accounts has become increasingly unpopular. Democrats have refused to negotiate on Social Security's long-term finances until the idea is taken off the table.
The House Republican proposal follows an announcement by Utah Republican Sen. Robert Bennett (news, bio, voting record) after a meeting with Bush on Tuesday that he will introduce legislation without the controversial account proposal. Democrats said on Wednesday they will not be lured into a "bait and switch" strategy.
No negotiation... No alternative... no bait and switch
they got what they want and still they want to obstruct. Again if anyone needed a reason to not vote for these guys here they provided it again.
The House plan, backed by Republican leaders, also avoids politically painful benefit cuts that account supporters said bogged down Bush's proposal. The bill's sponsors said it does not address Social Security's long-term financial problems and a board would be created to recommend changes before surpluses run out.
so.. another blue ribbon pannel to tell you "either we get more money or we do cuts" and another postponement of the call by congress
The latest Republican privatization scheme is a transparent political gimmick that would weaken Social Security," said Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid of Nevada.
Rep. Sander Levin (news, bio, voting record) of Michigan, the top Democrat on the ways and means Social Security subcommittee, said the Republican plan was riddled with uncertainty.
"For those who are counting on a guaranteed benefit it would bring uncertainty by making Social Security's shortfall worse," he said. "For those who might hold a private account, it would bring uncertainty about how the accounts would be funded after the surplus is exhausted."
Ok Dingy harry is this anything like the private accounts you were in favor of? Don't worry i won't be holding my breat for the answer
and to Sandy Levin i need to say this: ummmm you are a Senator, it is your job to see how the accounts get funded. I mean legislation gets tooled and retooled until questions get answered.
So the Score card?
Democrats talking about the issues :0
republicans with a loss of spine: at least 3 (including the president) mentioned in the reuters article.
If you cut, you have to give something... that's just a rule we work with.
If you tax us to snot to fund old people who frittered the surplus away ... you're going to see a real breakdown in civility and allot of folks poping onto welfare rolls.
This here is the window to fix things, but seems our elected officals are still buisy pointing fingers
No comments:
Post a Comment