"Senators may block SS vote"

[Auburn85 432]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7152885/

Opposition in Senate looks formidableBy Charles Babington and Jim VandeHei

Updated: 10:28 p.m. ET March 10, 2005President Bush's bid to add individual accounts to Social Security faces such formidable opposition in the Senate that its supporters may be unable to bring it to a vote, according to a Washington Post survey of senators.

An overwhelming majority of Democratic senators said they will oppose, under any circumstances, Bush's plan to allow younger workers to divert a portion of their Social Security payroll taxes into individual investment accounts that would follow them into retirement. A few others said they will not support such accounts if they require substantial government borrowing. Even many Republicans say that is inevitable because the alternative involves unacceptably large cuts in benefits and/or tax increases to replace the diverted taxes.

Combined, these Democrats form a coalition large enough -- more than 41 members -- to use delaying tactics to keep the proposal from reaching a vote in the 100-member chamber. The Post survey of the Senate's 44 Democrats and one Democratic-leaning independent indicates there are at least 42 -- and perhaps 44 -- who firmly oppose personal investment accounts, particularly if they are financed with borrowed money.

 

•

Vice President Cheney has said the Bush accounts would cost "trillions of dollars." Democrats put the price tag at $5 trillion over 20 years.

In the clearest sign yet that Bush's efforts to win bipartisan support are flagging, several Democrats that the White House has been courting said they will not support the accounts at all. They include Sens. Thomas R. Carper (Del.) and Mary Landrieu (La.). Three other Bush targets -- Sens. Kent Conrad (N.D.), Joseph I. Lieberman (Conn.) and Mark Pryor (Ark.) -- said they will not support individual accounts financed by heavy borrowing.

‘Let's work together’

Bush, who has needed the support of some moderate and conservative Democrats to push through his major initiatives, yesterday appealed to all Democrats to cut a compromise. "If you see a problem, members of Congress, regardless of your party, you have an obligation to come to the table," he said in a speech in Louisville. "Let's work together to solve it. All ideas are on the table." Once the public realizes the seriousness of Social Security's long-term problems, Bush said, "I pity the politicians who stands in the way of a solution."

Told of The Post's survey, White House spokesman Trent Duffy said, "We feel very good about where we are with the Congress. A growing number of members from both sides of the aisle acknowledge there is a serious problem and are talking about possible solutions."

In the Post survey of the one independent and 44 Democratic senators, only two -- Ben Nelson (Neb.) and Robert C. Byrd (W.Va.) -- did not criticize Bush's plan and said they will consider it once he provides more details. Two other Democrats -- Paul S. Sarbanes of Maryland and Daniel K. Inouye of Hawaii -- did not close the door to considering individual accounts, with Sarbanes saying he objects to such surveys. However, Sarbanes and Inouye cited a March 3 letter to Bush as representing their feelings about his plan.

The letter, signed by 41 Democrats and independent Sen. James M. Jeffords (Vt.), said the Bush plan is "unacceptable." It called on the president to "unambiguously announce that you reject privatized accounts funded with Social Security dollars. . . ."

CONTINUED

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1 | 2 | Next >

[Auburn85 432]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7162162/

Hand-picked crowds for Social Security show

Bush preaches to the converted while pitching his overhaul plan

Jamie Martin / AP

President Bush discusses his plan to revamp Social Security at Auburn University Montgomery on Thursday in Montgomery, Ala. 

The Associated Press

Updated: 9:06 p.m. ET March 11, 2005SHREVEPORT, La. - In state after state along President Bush’s Social Security road campaign, hand-picked audiences cheer him, leaving the impression that the nation wholeheartedly backs his ideas for reform.

The reality is different.

While a majority of Americans approve of Bush’s handling of terrorism and foreign policy, just 37 percent like his approach to Social Security, an Associated Press poll found.

“I’ve got a lot of educating to do to convince people not only that we have a problem, but we need to come together and come up with a solution to Social Security,” Bush conceded at the end of a two-day swing through Kentucky, Alabama, Tennessee and Louisiana.

Bush has hosted Social Security events in 14 states since his Feb. 2 State of the Union address.

At each one, the audience lends supportive applause when he talks about the federal retirement system’s solvency problems and his desire to let younger workers set up private retirement accounts.

Only when dissenters manage to slip into the presidential events and voice their disapproval is there an inkling of what opinion polls clearly show: Not everyone is on board.

• Wolk: The annuity factor in private accounts

• Curry: Private accounts an electoral winner?

• Wolk: The president's domestic priority

• Gains in plan depend on investment returns

At a stop earlier in the day in Memphis, a young woman shouted “No” as Bush marketed his ideas onstage. The woman, one of four people who interrupted Bush’s remarks, was escorted out of the event. A man in the crowd later shook his head and muttered aloud: “There’s no guarantee. There’s no guarantee,” apparently in disagreement with Bush’s proposals.

“There is difference of opinion, and I’ve got mine,” Bush said in Memphis, Tenn. “I’m going to continue traveling our country until it becomes abundantly clear to the American people we have a problem.”

A majority of Americans, 56 percent, say they disapprove of Bush’s handling of Social Security. A similar number in a recent AP poll opposed the creation of personal accounts. Even people who approve of the way Bush has handled terrorism — political independents, Catholics, married women, older Americans and Southerners — have strong doubts about his Social Security plans.

“If he’s having difficulty in selling his plan in red states, you can imagine how hard it will be in blue states,” said Rep. Harold Ford Jr., a Democrat who represents much of Memphis and attended the event.

Apparently undaunted by polls that show less-than-enthusiastic support, Bush talked excitedly about how he was taking his Social Security road tour on to Florida, Arizona, New Mexico and Colorado.

“I want everybody involved in the process to know that I believe the American people are going to determine the fate of this issue,” Bush said. “I intend to take my message out week after week after week so the people can hear it."

[Auburn85 432]

Obesity will save Social Security. The Democrats will be dancing

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7209499/

. life expectancy will fall dramatically in coming years because of obesity, a startling shift in a long-running trend toward longer lives, researchers contend in a report published Thursday.

By their calculations — disputed by skeptics as shaky and overly dire — within 50 years obesity likely will shorten the average life span of 77.6 years by at least two to five years. That’s more than the impact of cancer or heart disease, said lead author S. Jay Olshansky, a longevity researcher at the University of Illinois at Chicago.

This would reverse the mostly steady increase in American life expectancy that has occurred in the past two centuries and would have tremendous social and economic consequences that could even inadvertently help “save” Social Security, Olshansky and colleagues contend.

  Tell us what you think

Vote:  Should curbing obesity be a national priority?

“We think today’s younger generation will have shorter and less healthy lives than their parents for the first time in modern history unless we intervene,” Olshansky said.

Already, the alarming rise in childhood obesity is fueling a new trend that has shaved four to nine months off the average U.S. life span, the researchers say.

With obesity affecting at least 15 percent of U.S. school-age children, “it’s not pie in the sky,” Olshansky said. “The children who are extremely obese are already here.”

The report appears in the New England Journal of Medicine. In an accompanying editorial, University of Pennsylvania demography expert Samuel H. Preston calls the projections “excessively gloomy.”

Opposing forecasts, projecting a continued increase in U.S. longevity, assume that obesity will continue to worsen, but also account for medical advances, Preston said.

Still, failure to curb obesity “could impede the improvements in longevity that are otherwise in store,” he said. Americans’ current life expectancy already trails more than 20 other developed countries.

Sobering statistics

Dr. David Ludwig of Children’s Hospital Boston, a study co-author, cited sobering obesity statistics:

Two-thirds of U.S. adults are overweight or obese; one-third of adults qualify as obese.

Up to 30 percent of U.S. children are overweight, and childhood obesity has more than doubled in the past 25 years.

Childhood diabetes has increased 10-fold in the past 20 years.

“It’s one thing for an adult of 45 or 55 to develop type 2 diabetes and then experience the life-threatening complications of that — kidney failure, heart attack, stroke — in their late 50s or 60s. But for a 4-year-old or 6-year-old who’s obese to develop Type 2 diabetes at 14 or 16” raises the possibility of devastating complications before reaching age 30, Ludwig said. “It’s really a staggering prospect.”

While national attention is starting to focus on contributors to obesity, including the prevalence of fast-food, soft drinks in schools and cuts in physical education classes, “what we presently lack is a clear, comprehensive national vision for addressing the obesity epidemic,” Ludwig said.

The calculations are a stark contrast with Social Security Administration forecasts for slow improvement in life expectancy, and with projections publicized in 2002 that said the maximum human life span will reach 100 in about six decades. In an interview, Olshansky said he hoped the new research would play a role in the current discussion about overhauling Social Security.

[Piglet 0]

Obesity will save Social Security. The Democrats will be dancing

Republicans will be dancing too, right? They tend to love seeing people pay the price for making wrong choices...

If Democrats manage to block this sneaky attempt to destroy SS, I say it shows there's still some good left in 'em.

[Auburn85 432]

Obesity will save Social Security. The Democrats will be dancing

Republicans will be dancing too, right? They tend to love seeing people pay the price for making wrong choices...

If Democrats manage to block this sneaky attempt to destroy SS, I say it shows there's still some good left in 'em.

151319[/snapback]

If you don't want to privatize your SS, then don't sign up for it

Sneaky? Bush is touring the country. The media is conducting polls. The Dems are getting publicity for going against the plan. Meet The Press for like the last month, has talked about it with every Senator that's been on the show . Hardly sneaky

[Auburn85 432]

http://www.house.gov/pelosi/calculator/

Thank goodnss for Nancy Pelosi. She has offered a service so you can calculate how much you WILL lose by privatization of SS.

[Auburn85 432]

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

“The average Social Security check is $950. That is not a lot of money for those that depend on it for their rent, food, medicine, etc. Under President Bush’s proposal, benefits would be cut by more than 40 percent. Even considering a cut of that magnitude is unconscionable.”

“The President would also impose a privatization tax that would effectively deduct and average of 70 cents from a person’s Social Security check for every dollar they had in the private account. You don’t hear a lot about that. It’s called the “clawback.” It’s a term in law called the “clawback.”

Is the 40% reduction a PROVEN FACT? Why can't they say that benefits may be cut UP TO 40%. Now they have to take the number and run with it? Scare tactics aren't being used just on the CONSERVATIVE SIDE