Liberalitus Democraticus

[DKW 86 7,423]

[Auburn85 432]

http://www.democraticleader.house.gov/issues/the_economy/

“ Democratic priorities are clear: we will fight to get the economy back on track, we will create jobs, and we will help unemployed workers. "

quote from Nancy Pelosi's site

[Auburn85 432]

http://www.house.gov/pelosi/press/releases...alSecurity.html

Pelosi: 'Stop Robbing the Social Security Trust Fund of Its Money'

March 2, 2005

Washington, D.C. - House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi released the following statement on Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan's comments before the House Budget Committee on the need to address quickly Social Security and Medicare funding issues:

"I wish Chairman Greenspan would ask his Republican colleagues to take quick action against deficit spending. President Bush and the Republicans have created a record deficit and are raiding the Social Security trust fund to make up for it.

"The Chairman is right, Medicare is a crisis and I wish the President would address it. But the President's solution should not be to make the Social Security problem worse.

"Democrats are fighting to put our financial house in order with common sense budgeting and pay-as-you-go spending. President Bush and the Republicans in Congress should stop their deficit spending and stop robbing the Social Security trust fund of its money.

"Democrats are ready to work with Republicans to address the challenges facing Social Security and Medicare. But we will not support any plan that harms the middle class, jeopardizes guaranteed Social Security benefits, or increases the deficit. We will fight to protect and strengthen Social Security and Medicare

Robbery isn't the proper term. Robbery is when you violently take something away.

[Auburn85 432]

I thought Nancy said that they 'd be willing to help.

Senate Dems 'United' Against 'Goofy Privatization Scheme'

By Jeff Johnson

CNSNews.com Senior Staff Writer

March 03, 2005

(CNSNews.com) - Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid said Wednesday that his party's caucus is marching in lockstep to block President Bush's plan to introduce personal retirement accounts as a way to shore up Social Security.

"Everyone here should understand all 45 Senate Democrats are united," Reid told reporters. "We are not going to let this happen."

Reid is, presumably, including Vermont Sen. Jim Jeffords, an independent, in that count. Jeffords joined his Democratic Senate colleagues in a letter to President Bush opposing the concept of personal retirement accounts.

Montana Democrat Max Baucus, the ranking member of the Senate Finance Committee, said his fellow Democrats are unwilling even to hear all of the details of the president's plan before making their decision.

"Private accounts are off the table," Baucus said. "We're wasting our time even talking about them."

The Bush plan would allow workers to direct a portion of their Social Security payroll taxes into government controlled investments in what the White House calls "a conservative mix of stocks, corporate bonds and government securities." Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) derided what he called "this goofy privatization scheme." He warned that if Republicans want Democrats' cooperation in addressing the problems with Social Security, they will have to promise not to include personal retirement accounts as part of their strategy.

"The only way they're going to get a plan and to get us to work with them is to take privatization off the table and that has to be clear and unequivocal from the president," Schumer demanded. "Then we can start talking, but not before then."

Sen. Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.) hinted at one of the Democrats' main points of contention with the personal retirement account concept.

"They have this wonderful term called a 'claw back,' which basically means you don't even keep the full amount that's in the account," Stabenow said. She alleged that the president's plan would require workers to return the amount of payroll taxes invested in the accounts, plus three percent interest, plus the rate of inflation to the government.

Documents previously released by the White House contradict that claim.

"Under President Bush's plan, participants would get to keep EVERY SINGLE PENNY OF THEIR RETIREMENT ACCOUNTS - BOTH THE PRINCIPAL AND THE INTEREST," the White House press office wrote Feb. 3, emphasizing its point with the use of capital letters.

"The president's plan for personal retirement accounts does not have a 'claw back,'" stated a document entitled, "Setting the Record Straight."

President Bush has said that he wants workers to have the option to divert up to four percentage points out of the 6.2 percent of their income that is currently paid in Social Security taxes into personal retirement accounts. The remaining 2.2 percent of employee payroll taxes and the full employer matching payment - which combined equals 8.4 percent of the worker's income - would still be paid to the traditional Social Security system.

The president believes younger workers could fare better by investing in such a plan than they could through traditional Social Security.

"Your money will grow, over time, at a greater rate than anything the current system can deliver -- and your account will provide money for retirement over and above the check you will receive from Social Security," Bush said during this year's State of the Union address.

"In addition, you'll be able to pass along the money that accumulates in your personal account, if you wish, to your children and, or grandchildren," the president continued. "And best of all, the money in the account is yours, and the government can never take it away."

http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewNation.asp?Page...T20050303a.html

So we should only discuss what's convenient for them?

[Auburn85 432]

http://www.lasvegassun.com/sunbin/stories/.../518180143.html

GOP leaders bash Reid on Social Security issue

By Benjamin Grove

<grove@lasvegassun.com>

LAS VEGAS SUN

WASHINGTON -- Republicans are suggesting that Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev., flip-flopped on the issue of Social Security.

Senate Republican Leader Bill Frist in a Jan. 16 talk show appearance said Reid, the Senate Democratic leader, had voiced support for privatizing the popular federal payroll tax program. President Bush and some GOP leaders have made Social Security changes their top issue in the new Congress.

Reid in recent months has asserted that Democrats would strongly oppose Bush's plan to allow younger workers to funnel some of their Social Security payroll tax into investment accounts.

On Monday, the Republican National Committee issued a press release quoting Reid from a 1999 interview on "Fox News Sunday" as saying, "Most of us have no problem with taking a small amount of the Social Security proceeds and putting it into the private sector."

Reid has never backed diverting Social Security money to private accounts, despite the comment suggesting otherwise, Reid spokeswoman Tessa Hafen said. Reid's 1999 remark may have been in reference to a broader discussion about setting up a retirement program using private accounts -- a program separate from Social Security, Hafen said.

Congress this week began its legislative business for the year, with Reid and Frist on Monday outlining their top 10 priorities. Then the two parties promptly got down to the business of bashing each other.

Reid on Monday called the Democrats' vision for the year the "Promise of America." But Reid's real promise is to block "the American people's priorities," Republican National Committee chairman Ken Mehlman said.

"Considering Reid's record of obstructing the Department of Homeland Security, obstructing medical liability changes and obstructing President Bush's efforts to preserve Social Security, it's clear that Reid and the Democrats would rather engage in partisan politics than work for their constituents," Mehlman said in a press release.

Reid had objected to some rules in the creation of the Homeland Security Department that he believed would hurt federal workers, but he supported the creation of department and elevating its director to a Cabinet-level position, aides said.

Reid decried the early "petty name-calling."

"Democrats have put forward a positive, optimistic agenda grounded in American values," Reid said. "Republicans gave us negative attacks and the same old ideas aimed at stoking up fear and dividing our country"

He was all for it under Bill Clinton

[DKW 86 7,423]

http://www.democraticleader.house.gov/issues/the_economy/

“ Democratic priorities are clear: we will fight to get the economy back on track, we will create jobs, and we will help unemployed workers. "

quote from Nancy Pelosi's site

149566[/snapback]

I hear she reps for San Francisco. Is that one of the Village People on her web site?

[Auburn85 432]

I guess it's just going to nearly be all the Republicans talking about fixing SS and the Democrats are just going to criticize every word that comes out of a Republican's mouth.

Dem speaking "We're taking our ball and going home until you take privatization off the table....... but it's ok to talk about tax hikes, benefit cuts, and retiring age being raised"

So go ahead and stick your heads in the sand and be on the wrong side of history........... Again

And no ,I don't agree with the Republican that wants to raise he retirement age to 68....... he doesn't speak for all of us. But at least he's willing to talk about SS. I guess the dems have no plan, but to insult

[Auburn85 432]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7193614/

WASHINGTON - Surrounded by 37 Democratic senators on the steps of the Capitol, Democratic Leader Sen. Harry Reid of Nevada threatened Tuesday to shut down the Senate over the issue of filibusters of President Bush’s judicial nominations. Reid would exempt from his shut-down only national defense matters and spending needed to ensure ongoing federal operations.

Right after the Senate returns from its two-week break, which begins Friday, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist is likely to move to change a Senate rule that requires 60 votes to cut off debate on a nomination in order to bring it to final up-or-down vote.

Frist would lower the filibuster threshold for nominations to 51.

Reid called on Americans to “oppose this arrogant abuse of power” and accused Bush and his Republican allies in the Senate of trying to “break down the separation of powers and ram through their appointees to the judicial branch.”

He charged Bush and Frist with harboring a “desire for absolute power.”

'Cataclysmic event'

“If Republicans want to go down this road, they are going to be beginning a huge, partisan, cataclysmic event, the implications of which are so profound that none of us really know the answer to it,” said Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont., one of the Democrats arrayed behind Reid on the Capitol steps. “It would mean the government could not function, which, more importantly, means we could not be doing the people’s work.”

Since beginning the filibuster strategy in March 2003, the Democratic minority in the Senate has killed 10 of Bush’s nominations to the federal appeals courts by threatening to keep talking on the floor until they were withdrawn.

Bush made a total of 51 appeals court nominations in his first term. Of those nominations, 35 were confirmed, 10 were killed by filibuster and six did not emerge from the Judiciary Committee.

Bush later used his recess appointment power to give two of the filibustered nominees, William Pryor and Charles Pickering, temporary spots on the federal appellate bench.

Reid made a point of noting in his statement Tuesday that “only 10 of 214 nominations have been turned down.”

Republicans counter that most of those approved were district court nominees.

District court judges conduct trials, but have little power to hand down rulings in cases with constitutional implications. The real power to affect constitutional law is on the appeals courts and the Supreme Court.

Key Democrats: Nelson, Lieberman

Conspicuous by their absence from Reid’s Capitol steps event were two Democrats: Sen. Ben Nelson of Nebraska, who has voted against all but one of the Democratic filibusters since 2003, and Sen. Joe Lieberman of Connecticut. Both men are up for re-election next year, and Nelson is running in a state Bush won with 66 percent of the vote.

David DiMartino, a spokesman for Nelson, said the senator has indicated that he will not vote for Frist’s proposed rule change. Instead, Nelson is working on a proposal for a permanent rules change that would allow the majority party to circumvent the filibuster. Nelson would require a specific time frame for the Senate to vote up or down on a nominee.

Under Senate rules, Nelson’s proposed change would require 67 votes in order to take effect, which makes it unlikely to pass in the current environment.

Reacting to Reid’s threat, Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas said, “When the American people realize that they are threatening to shut down government because we want to restore majority rule in the United States Senate, I think it’s going to backfire on them terribly.”

Cornyn said the 2004 election results, which gave the GOP a net gain of four Senate seats, were driven largely by voter opposition to Democratic filibustering of Bush’s judicial nominees.

“If we don’t do this (lower the filibuster threshold), I think those people who gave us the large majority and re-elected the president are going to think that we have been ineffective, and you know what happens to people who voters think are ineffective: They get unelected,” he said.

Cornyn said he was confident there are enough Republican senators to get the 50 needed to approve the parliamentary move to lower the filibuster requirement.

Looking to Supreme Court vacancy

He said it was “absolutely” necessary to resolve the filibuster issue before a vacancy occurs on the Supreme Court. “Once we get a Supreme Court vacancy, I think that’ll overwhelm virtually every other issue.”

There are at least a few GOP senators who have said they would oppose the filibuster change that Frist will seek.

One of them, Sen. Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island, said Tuesday, “The important thing is to try to avoid these confrontations so that a nominee could get bipartisan support. I like to give the executive full leeway to make these choices, whichever party it is. The main thing is to get nominees who are not going to be lightning rods and polarize. Then we’re not in that situation of threatened filibusters.”

Chafee is up for re-election next year in a state that John Kerry carried with 60 percent of the vote.

A Republican who will vote to lower the filibuster threshold for nominees, Sen. George Allen of Virginia, predicted that “the Democrats are going to have heck of a time pulling this off. There’ll be senators like Ben Nelson and Joe Lieberman who will say, ‘Wait a second, we tried this play for the last two years and Tom Daschle is our former leader.”

Daschle lost his Senate seat partly due to South Dakota voters’ disenchantment with his leadership of the Senate Democrats on the filibuster strategy.

“The reality is they’re not cooperating on much of anything anyway,” Allen said of the Democrats. “Ultimately, if they try to hold up the energy bill, hold up welfare reform, I really do think they’ll just be digging a deeper grave.”

“There’s a lot of bluffing going on here and I think we ought to call their bluff. We shouldn’t cower, we should not be timid,” he said.

Democrats often point to delays and obstruction of President Clinton’s judicial nominees by Republican senators, accusing the GOP of inconsistency in its current stance.

"All we have ever asked for (Clinton nominees) Marsha Berzon and Richard Paez is that both nominees get an up-or-down vote," Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., said in 1999. "If a senator has a problem with particular nominees, he or she should vote against them. But a nominee should not be held up interminably by a handful of senators."

Ultimately in March of 2000, both Paez and Berzon were confirmed by the Senate and both now serve on the federal appeals court for the 9th Circuit.