W'S OLIVE BRANCH

[Tigermike 3,040]

W'S OLIVE BRANCH

By STEPHEN MOORE

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

May 2, 2005 -- AT his press conference last Thursday, President Bush for the first time put meat on the bones of his proposal to modernize Social Security and save it from financial collapse.

Despite their relentless opposition, Bush included an enormous olive branch to Democrats — one that has some conservatives unhappy. But his reform package is still a winner for all Americans.

The president's plan would be a financial savior for young workers while safeguarding the benefits for the old. It would allow Americans to take one-third of their payroll tax for Social Security (or about 4 percent of every paycheck) and divert those funds into a personal IRA-type account that they themselves would own and control. As Bush has put it: "This is money that the government could never take away from you."

By tapping into the power of compound interest, the average American under the age of 30 would be able to accumulate more than $500,000 in these accounts by the time he or she reached retirement age. It is no wonder that the vast majority of 18- to 30-year-olds support this plan.

The challenge for the White House has always been to find a way to win over Democratic votes in Congress. President Bush's latest outreach to the Democrats is a proposal to slow the growth of future promised benefits for higher income and some middle-income workers. Social Security now faces a multitrillion-dollar unfunded liability; Bush's move would cut that by about half.

But benefits would still rise over the next 75 years —this is no "benefit cut." Factor in the $500,000 that workers would et from their personal accounts, and young workers do substantially better under this plan than they do under current law.

This plan to trim future benefits to higher income Americans would no doubt be warmly embraced by the "class warfare" Democrats as fair and balanced if it were say, Bill Clinton, who proposed it.

But congressional Democrats have shown themselves to be incapable of engaging in a grown-up discussion about how to modernize Social Security — a pension program designed for 1930s America.

At last week's Senate hearings on Social Security, the Democrats merely spewed venom at Bush's plan to allow American workers the financial freedom to own and control their own personal-retirement accounts.

It is almost as if the Senate Democrats — and some feckless Republicans, too — have a hyper-allergic reaction to the notion of letting workers build up private wealth and personal ownership. A cynic might say that they are so wedded to preserving the welfare state that they want Americans to be dependent on government, even if it means they will be worse off financially.

The Democrats have always described themselves as the party of the working class, and the party that protects the interests of minorities. Yet the greatest beneficiaries of personal accounts for Social Security are precisely lower- and middle-income workers. That was the point that the late Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan made repeatedly about the advantages of personal accounts. He insisted that personal accounts give the doorman the same chance to to build up private wealth and get rich that the people living in the penthouse suite enjoy.

Study after study has demonstrated that black and Latino workers, because they start working at earlier ages and because they have lower life expectancies than whites, get the worst rate of return from Social Security. For black men, whose life expectancy is actually slightly below the Social Security normal retirement age, the rate of return on Social Security is negative. Where is the justice and fairness in that?

The main attack against personal accounts from the congressional Democrats is that they are "too risky." But President Bush's plan for personal accounts is optional for every worker. Those who believe that personal accounts are "too risky" are welcome to stay under conventional Social Security. Bush simply gives all Americans the right to decide for themselves. The left still says no. So much for the Democrats being the "pro choice" party.

Democrats' Berlin Wall of opposition to any Social Security plan with even a whiff of private ownership makes it unlikely that Bush succeed with his reform this year. But reformers should not despair.

By standing by his principles, while showing a willingness to compromise, Bush has at the very least laid the groundwork for future victory.  Today's Washington Democrats, meanwhile, have exposed themselves as reactionary obstructionists, completely devoid of any ideas of their own.

Bush deserves praise for being the first president in modern history to have the political courage to try to avert a tsunami of red ink in Social Security over the next 50 years. That is what the voters will ultimately remember about this political tug of war. The president and reform-minded Republicans may not win this first battle, but they are winning the war.

Stay the course.

Stephen Moore is president of the Free Enterprise Fund and a senior fellow at the Cato Institute.

http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/opedcolumnists/43373.htm

[Piglet 0]

"Olive branch." More like poison ivy.

I first read the first sentence as, "....his proposal to sodomize Social Security..." which come to think of it, would be more accurate. "Meat on the bones", indeed.

George ain't fooling me for a minute. He's desperate to end Social Security before the baby boom generation realizes its vested interest in keeping it.

[WarTim 3,456]

"Olive branch."  More like poison ivy.

I first read the first sentence as, "....his proposal to sodomize Social Security..." which come to think of it, would be more accurate. "Meat on the bones", indeed.

George ain't fooling me for a minute.  He's desperate to end Social Security before the baby boom generation realizes its vested interest in keeping it.

158203[/snapback]

I wonder...Hmmmm..What would all of these libbies say to their grandchildren when asked "Why did you do NOTHING when you could have to see to it that I had something in SS when I retired?

Hurry...waiting...still waiting....

SS is either in trouble or slick willy and hitlary lied about it during HER presidency too!

Which is it?

[DKW 86 7,431]

"Olive branch."  More like poison ivy.

I first read the first sentence as, "....his proposal to sodomize Social Security..." which come to think of it, would be more accurate. "Meat on the bones", indeed.

George ain't fooling me for a minute.  He's desperate to end Social Security before the baby boom generation realizes its vested interest in keeping it.

158203[/snapback]

:roflol:

[Piglet 0]

I wonder...Hmmmm..What would all of these libbies say to their grandchildren when asked "Why did you do NOTHING when you could have to see to it that I had something in SS when I retired?

Hurry...waiting...still waiting....

SS is either in trouble or slick willy and hitlary lied about it during HER presidency too!

Which is it?

158262[/snapback]

I'd say Bill and Hillary probably lied about it. That's pretty much a safe bet, whatever you're talking about.

As for the rest of it, the libbies could at least say they prevented the Republicans from destroying SS.

It wouldn't be as funny perhaps as the conservatives pretending to their own children that they couldn't possibly have foreseen that Bush's plan intentionally caused SS to lose money faster, but I can do without the laugh, thank you.

[TrueBlue72 0]

Piglet, I don't know your age or where you came from, but it is hard to imagine an AU educated person who actually believes what you are saying! Anyone who actually READS the article can't help but see that it is logical and fiscally sound. But those who oppose Bush, oppose EVERYTHING he proposes, regardless of it's merit.

[Piglet 0]

Piglet, I don't know your age or where you came from, but it is hard to imagine an AU educated person who actually believes what you are saying!  Anyone who actually READS the article can't help but see that it is logical and fiscally sound.  But those who oppose Bush, oppose EVERYTHING he proposes, regardless of it's merit.

158320[/snapback]

Ever the gentleman, TrueBlue. You can dismiss me as a kneejerker if you want to, but if you do, you may find you've got nothing left over for the Hate-America crowd.

From where I sit, it's hard to see how an AU educated person could be suckered in by the fake concern of a party that's been trying to destroy Social Security since the day it was established. Here's a government that makes no bones about how it's against any kind of welfare. Not only that, but they can't see to the consequences of this year's deficit spending or this year's military action, much less any kind of warnings about impending global warming, impending health care crises, or the trade gap. It's all about instant gratification, as is usual with politicians.

And after all that, you expect me to swallow their anxious Chicken Littling about what's gonna happen in 2042 to a welfare program they've always hated, if they don't get to monkey around with it right away? I say GET REAL.

[CCTAU 3,335]

Apparently you live paycheck to paycheck and invest nothing for the future. Because you see a return of 1.5%-2.5% over your life as being sufficient. Anyone with a 10-year old's understanding of economics would frown at you. Its not that SS is hated by conservatives, we just seem to be a little more intelligent on the subject. Maybe we are the young generation who started off by putting money into a 401K. We see our parent's and the smidgen they get after contributing more than their share, but having to share that with you who did not.

News flash, SS is dying. The piper will be paid. Now or later. Some of us prefer now while there is a plan and not a kneejerk reaction to try and fix it.

SS= Slave to the demoncrat. No SS, no leverage for EVERY demoncrat. Baby boomers are gonna suck it dry. But we have a chance to soften the blow. Please stay out of my pocket. YOU CAN OPT OUT and starve when you retire. I'll be the guy with a little more than you that you hate. But hey, maybe demoncratic socialism will be in effect by then and you can take part of what I worked hard for.

PS. Stay off of the conspiracy theory websites. It only fuels the emptiness that seems to be your thought process.

[Piglet 0]

CCTAU, you can feel free to fool yourself and dismiss me as a knee-jerker all you want, but it don't make it so. And you don't know beans about what I do about my retirement. I sure don't look at SS as my sole pension.

If SS is inevitably dying, you guys on the right who never wanted it to exist should be rejoicing about it, not crying crocodile tears and trying to convince us you can make it better by monkeying around with it. It's the Bush Administration themselves who have acknowledged that doing what they want to do will cost more and require lower benefits than leaving it unchanged. If they wanted to 'save' SS, they might be a tad concerned about that. Since they want to do it anyway, it looks like their goal is something other than saving it. That ain't no conspiracy theory; that's just common sense.

[WarTim 3,456]

Olive branch?! President Bush could offer the WHOLE olive TREE and the leftist would return it because it came from "W". They are still stuck in "fit pitchin'" mode from the last election.

I am thankful we have a President who is thinking only of what is best for this Country.

May God Bless OUR President.

[BamaGrad03 0]

Piglet...I'm trying to understand your position (im not flaming you or anything)...but Im not seeing where you are coming from. You are saying that the republicans are trying to kill SS, but provide no examples of how...especially when it relates to this plan.

As stated earlier, SS in its present state...and always...is mismanaged. A 1-2% return is abysmal when compared to the 70 year track record of an 11% compound return of the stock market. So I dont see what is so great about the current SS.

Second, why do you, and all other dems, REFUSE to acknowledge that its ABSOLUTELY VOLUNTARY!? It doesnt matter if this is the worst plan in the world...you dont like it...dont JOIN it. THAT SIMPLE.

Thrid, your party says its okay for a woman to choose to abort a child...but its the GOVERMENTS right to invest/manage MY MONEY? How is that sane? Its my retirement. Its my 401k. If I want to invest it instead of shoving it under the SS mattress, thats MY deal..not yours. Who are YOU to tell ME what to do with MY money? Again, its voluntary. You like 2% better than 11% so be it.

If you are all about personal freedoms and rights...why do you want to take my freedom of managing my money away? We dont live in a socialist country. End of story.

[Tigermike 3,040]

Piglet...I'm trying to understand your position (im not flaming you or anything)...but Im not seeing where you are coming from. You are saying that the republicans are trying to kill SS, but provide no examples of how...especially when it relates to this plan.

As stated earlier, SS in its present state...and always...is mismanaged. A 1-2% return is abysmal when compared to the 70 year track record of an 11% compound return of the stock market. So I dont see what is so great about the current SS.

Second, why do you, and all other dems, REFUSE to acknowledge that its ABSOLUTELY VOLUNTARY!? It doesnt matter if this is the worst plan in the world...you dont like it...dont JOIN it. THAT SIMPLE.

Thrid, your party says its okay for a woman to choose to abort a child...but its the GOVERMENTS right to invest/manage MY MONEY? How is that sane? Its my retirement. Its my 401k. If I want to invest it instead of shoving it under the SS mattress, thats MY deal..not yours. Who are YOU to tell ME what to do with MY money? Again, its voluntary. You like 2% better than 11% so be it.

If you are all about personal freedoms and rights...why do you want to take my freedom of managing my money away? We dont live in a socialist country. End of story.

158685[/snapback]

Usually whenever liberals won't give you details, it's because the details don't help them.

[WarTim 3,456]

"Details? We don't need no stinkin' details!" Every liberal I have EVER met

[DKW 86 7,431]

Thanks BG. That made so much sense, I bet it flew right over Lib heads on the Internet.

[Guest Tigrinum Major]

In my mind, SS is the world's biggest Ponzi scheme. As much as I hate to agree with a Bama fan, BG's post was rational and very well thought out.

[WarTim 3,456]

When bg is right, he is right. On this one, make no mistake, he is right.

[AuNuma1 1]

Seriously, are any of the democrats here going to respond to BS's comments? Just pick one, don't care which. I just want to see a valid rebuttal to it...

[DKW 86 7,431]

Chirp Chirp.....

Crickets in the night air...