RE: [QUAD-L] social security

Sat, 05 Feb 2005 10:31:06 -0800

Hi Steve,
 
Sorry I took so long in getting back to you on this.  I actually derived my "couple of trillion" from watching a non-partisan panel discussing SS/Medicare on C-SPAN and didn't have it in writing, so that was why there were no Web Links, as I normally do, to back up my statement on SS reform.
 
While I fully agree with you that the sky is not falling, unless something is done to reform SS and Medicare they are facing a future that is at best uncertain, and at worst devastating.  I try to look at both sides of the Social Security debate and make my decisions based on the facts! 
 
"The president says Social Security should be reformed because it is in "crisis." That is an exaggeration. Democrats say it should not be reformed because there is no crisis. That is a non sequitur. Social Security should be reformed not because there is a crisis but because there is an opportunity...One reason for reforming Social Security is that it is not in crisis compared with Medicare and Medicaid." George Will
 
Social Security will begin running a deficit in less than 15 years � that is, it will begin to spend more money on benefits than it brings in by taxes. At that point, to continue to pay promised benefits, the program will have to draw on the Social Security Trust Fund.  
 
Now, with Social Security's future hanging in the balance, we find ourselves once again drawn into the participatory implications of our latest Social Security crisis. Trillions of dollars at stake and millions of seats at the table, but only one set of rules, and only one decision to be made, which, in the final analysis, all of us must make jointly. Small wonder that Congress has gotten so stalemated on Social Security reform. Joint decisions are so much harder than individual customer purchase decisions.

Yet the political stalemate on Social Security reform, though understandable, is both dangerous and expensive. It cannot be allowed to continue. An effective strategy for saving Social Security must somehow be pieced together. How can this be done?                               http://www.sscommonsense.org/page11.html

In the face of a Social Security financing gap that expands with frightening speed after 2014, Americans are presented with an extraordinary challenge. How can such a gap possibly be closed? Six sets of options have been proposed.  http://www.sscommonsense.org/page13.html

Let's review the outcomes. The liberals' dream, the Stock-Rich Trust Fund, bears a start-up subsidy cost of $500 billion ($ 0.5 trillion). The centrist compromise, a Two-Track Savings Strategy, has a subsidy price tag of $ 1.8 trillion. The conservatives' dream, a Jump-Started PRA Strategy, requires a launching subsidy of $ 5.4 trillion. And the liberals' deep fallback position, the No-Stocks Trust Fund, demands a front-end subsidy of $ 6.4 trillion. Meanwhile, tax credits for the Archer-Shaw plan end up costing $9.6 trillion over the next 41 years.

...In the final analysis, the success of a two-track strategy in achieving lasting solvency for Social Security will depend heavily on the integrity of the federal government's launching subsidy. It would be pure folly to structure such a subsidy as a 14-year string of voluntary appropriations, knowing that Congress could pull the plug at any moment, especially if the GOP decides to hand out tax cuts, or the Democrats get excited about other priorities. Better to have Social Security receive a note at the outset for the entire $1.8 trillion, with Congress obligated to pay down the note in equal cash installments. Should Congress be late on any of its payments, the interest rate owed to the Trust Fund should reflect the real returns the Trust Fund would have earned, had Congress made its Trust Fund payments in a timely manner. The point, of course, is simply to ensure that Congress lives up to its promise and stays current on its payments to Social Security.                                                                                  http://www.sscommonsense.org/page23.html

 

I believe the time to act is before we have made cuts and lowered benefits, not after, so I will continue to watch the changes that are being proposed.  SSDI isn't a 'sacred cow' and in this time of change to simply trust that "SSDI will always be funded via SS or otherwise" is too big of a gamble for me to take!  

With Love,


CtrlAltDel aka Dave
C4/5 Complete - 28 Years Post
Texas, USA     

Steve Oldaker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

Dave...
 
Where do you derive that the proposed changes to SS will necessarily take a couple of trillion dollars out of the program?  This is likely exaggerations from the political left.  Much like the claim from the political right that SS will not be available for our next generation.  Each claim is equally bogus in my opinion, since it will take a majority to pass legislation, and neither the political left or right will allow either outcome to take place.  SSDI will always be funded via SS or otherwise.  Even the dumbest of politicians should know that it would be political suicide to tamper significantly with SSDI.  SS on the other hand, cries out for alternative and/or supplemental solutions to more effectively invest the SS contributions made by working citizens so they can appreciat! e a potentially real retirement income, not a paltry sustenance.  Besides, unless the proposal has changed significantly, we are only speaking of a relatively small portion of ones SS contributions being used for investment purposes.  The sky is not falling...
 
Steve
-----Original Message-----
From: David K. Kelmer [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, February 05, 2005 9:47 AM
To: River Wolfe; quadlist List; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [QUAD-L] social security

Hi River,
 
I don't know why there hasn't been more discussion about SS but I too have been following the plans to "fix" it.  Social Security is a retirement program; SSDI is an Insurance program.  To take a couple of trillion dollars out to start a 'Private Investment Account' may bring a better return over time, but taking that much money out of any program will hurt it.  SS retirement is something that a person has the time to plan ahead and be ready when they retire, while SSDI is something that can't be planned out on because it is needed after an unexpected life-changing accident.  Unless SSDI is funded separately there are going to be major problems in the near future, and everyone on it should be informed about the proposed changes, and be in contact with the people that represent them in Congress so they voices are heard BEFORE their benefits are cut.
 
With Love,

CtrlAltDel aka Dave
C4/5 Complete - 28 Years Post
Texas, USA 

River Wolfe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I sent something last week. Nobody seems too concerned on this list,
as no discussion followed the post.
here it is again.


I 've done an exhaustive search on this issue, even though I get state
retirement, not SS. This is what I've found, from the President's
Commission to strengthen Social Security. Looks like DIsability
benefits have been give short shrift in this discussion. We are merely
an afterthought. Some may see the language contained in this report as
inclusive and reassuring, however the language clearly states that the
issue of disability hasn't been well thought out and that no clear plan
has even been discussed. What is clear is that there is the intention
to separate retirement benefits from Disability benefits. The proposed
savings accounts will not be available for withdrawal upon disability.

I've t! ! ried several times to send this to the list but it won't go.
Here's the website and you then go to "reports" it will download the
commission's report.

http://www.csss.gov/
On Feb 4, 2005, at 4:00 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

> How will the presidents plan affect our Social Security?

Reply via email to