On Thu, 17 Feb 2005 17:50:00 -0600, Dan Minette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Gary Denton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > No, but I would suggest that proposals while there are GOP majorities > > in the House and Senate and a GOP President will go nowhere. That is > > likely when something real will happen on the political equation that > > only Nixon could go to China. Only the Democrats will be able to get > > the support for a real fix. > > The last fix, which was bigger than this one needs to be, was with Reagan > as president. I think it would be possible for Bush to push through the > plan I suggested....especially if he illustrated that he was putting a high > cap on SS. > > > There are also some hidden bias in the example you use. By the time > > someone will be able to get 90K a year in benefits run through what > > their income subject to FICA would have to be. (Interesting how > > increasing this FICA high endcap is also one of the proposals on the > > table so the GOP doesn't see this as the problem.). > > Sure, they'd be making a lot of income: roughly two 160k incomes/year. > But, that's really the point....as real average wage income rises, so does > SS payments. I'm proposing a cap on benefits at roughly 25.25k for a > single earner, at roughly 38k for a 1 wage earner couple, and at 50.5k for > a two wage earner couple (2005 dollars). This is well above the poverty > line. After that, it seems reasonable for people to fund their own > retirement. > > >All though this > > is something that can be pointed to as an example of a system > > supposedly out of control the real fiscal problems do not come from > > this maximum wage earners but the low end and the median. > > It's not so much out of control as needs to be tweaked. In 25 years it > would require a massive correction. With my proposal, people now making > 30k/year would be maxed out in '45, and folks now making 20k/year would be > maxed out around '60. Is there a problem with benefits at the levels I'm > suggesting? > > Dan M.
OK, Reagan had bipartisan support - the Democrats will not give Bush bipartisan support because the one time he had it he screwed them. On the No Child Left Behind Act Democrats agreed to his plan because it offered for financial incentives to raise school standards. Three months later his budget chopped off the incentives. He had some but less support on the Medicare Drug bill even though Democrats had always backed this. Most had learned the lesson on NCLB. Sure enough, by the time it was complete it was a huge costly monstrosity with minimal drug benefits but loaded with financial incentives to the GOP constituency - corporations. Corporations receive more of the money from this program than the people on Medicare. Now, would I support lower maximum benefits for Social Security?. I agree in principle, probably not in practice. I also agree that children should be receiving the same kind of program that Social Security has provided for the elderly. They don't because it is a program administered like what you propose to do for Social Security - benefits only to a certain underclass of people. In Texas, where we have the full manifestation of Bush's GOP philosophy, we have the highest number and the highest percentage of children without health insurance and the state refuses to fully fund child health care programs despite most of the cost being picked up by the federal government. So there is a big but here, *But* I am concerned that Social Security has been successful because it had support from all classes except the very rich and was not seen as a welfare program. If you limit it in the way you describe over time there will be more and more support to cut it like all other benefit programs restricted to low incomes have been cut. I am also concerned that you may be misguided as to what a healthy economic society can afford in social benefit programs. There is a big step necessary to fix Social Security permanently, provide a funding mechanism that changes with demographics. That funding mechanism would be funding from an estate tax. Can you think of another one? A less important and not permanently viable solution might be trust funds that are invested in higher rate of return investments. That would be the Clinton solution where as bonds in the trust fund mature they are replaced with common stocks and bond investments. The SSA has recently released a paper that shows if the wage cap on the income subjected to FICA was erased Social Security meets their 75 year viability test. It meets a longer viability test if benefits are not increased for the income over $90,000. Is that an acceptable solution to you? Gary D. This was started early this morning then I had to help my father and stepmother on SocSec and pensions move a new bed. Then I had a call from my nephew Ranger in Mosul who expects to come home in three weeks and see his daughter for the first time. Mosul is bad but better then when they first arrived. He says the entire Army is worn out and he doesn't know why Bush is saber rattling at Iran and Syria. More deployments will cause even more volunteers to leave. Also it appears this is Vietnam all over again - the soldiers don't like and have no respect for the Arabs. They feel the best trained Iraqi special forces compare unfavorably to US soldiers who wouldn't make it through boot camp. "This country is a dirty mess, we don't belong here but as long as we don't trust anyone and treat them all as the enemy we lose few people even if our treatment definitely doesn't make friends." _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
