On Thu, 17 Feb 2005 12:32:15 -0500, Erik Reuter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > * Dan Minette ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > > > I'll agree with Erik that the % of GDP going as payments to the > > elderly should not increase. So, I'd go with a similar reduction in > > the increase in benefits that was agreed to in '83, with no overall > > increase in the projected taxes collected (although the tax could > > be more progressive). I think that would definately get us within > > the ball park of long term sustainability by 2050. If this were > > accomplished by changing the indexing formula, as I have suggested, > > after sustainability was achieved, we would then see SS as a % of GDP > > slowly decrease after 2050....assuming roughly historical ecconomic > > growth. > > Nice summary, Dan. The plan you outline would be a huge improvement over > what we have now. I'd definitely support something like it. I hope the > shrill in the AARP and liberal media don't manage to scotch something > like that if it is on the table.
Replacing the payment increase being tied to the increase in cost of living instead of wages may be a deal-breaker for Democrats. All we can go on is past experience - benefits would be cut by more than half now if this had been implemented in the past. It would have guaranteed current retirees a benefit that would be a fraction of what they needed to live on - in the 1930s. It is also contrary to philosophy underlying SS, the benefits you receive are a function of your wages and are closely tied to your wages. The Democrats are in no mood for any compromises, the Bush fix is worse than doing nothing and much more expensive. Bush's efforts of selling the plan have only increased public opposition as more details leak out. Instead of benefits declining by roughly 25% in forty years after the surplus is exhausted and Social Security becomes pay-as-you-go benefits - under a Bush plan would decline by over 50% even including the invested fund benefit. Under current suggested replacement plans SS runs out of money sooner. In place of a $3.7 trillion SS deficit over 75 years starting in 40 years a Bush plan adds a $3 trillion larger general fund deficit starting in ten years. The new privatized accounts don't create an ownership society, they create a supplicant society as the accounts give no survivor or inheritor rights and there is limited right to choose investments. Disability and survivor benefits would start to decline in ten years. It takes some kind of *genius* to think Bush &co.has a plan to fix Social Security, they want to destroy it. Gary Denton _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
