Shocker: Right-Wingers Who DON'T Want to Destroy Your Retirement? Promising New Trend in Washington

[xchrom]

http://www.alternet.org/conservative-economist-backs-minimum-social-security-benefit-poor



A remarkable thing happened at a U.S. Senate Finance subcommittee hearing Wednesday on America’s retirement crisis and Social Security. Despite initial remarks from senators and experts who stuck to predictable talking points from the right and the left, none of the Republicans or any of their experts said that benefits could not be increased—at least for America’s poor.

Instead, a fairly serious discussion ensued. Well-respected economists on both sides of the aisle agreed it would not be hard or costly to shore up benefits for the poor by as much as 10 or 15 percent, which would markedly improve their quality of life. While no specific commitment was made on where this discussion would go next, it was a sign that the entitlement reform debate is moving beyond just cuts and austerity.

“I have argued for a more far-reaching reform, similar to what you have in New Zealand or the U.K., where every retiree receives a flat benefit at the poverty level. The idea is that you take poverty among [America’s] seniors, which today is at 9 percent, down to zero percent,” said Andrew G. Biggs, an American Enterprise Institute scholar who was the head of Social Security research in the George W. Bush administration.

“On top of that, if you want to have a benefit above poverty, we need to sign people up for employer-sponsored plans or IRAs or something along those lines,” Biggs continued. “Social Security—I’m not going to say that it does not cut poverty. Clearly it does.”

[Scuba]

1. OK, good, but they'll have to excuse me if I don't trust them.

[global1]

3. There's An Election In 2014 At Stake And I Believe That The Repugs Are Positioning Themselves.....

now to be able to somehow campaign as good guys for that election. I believe that one of their first steps in this strategy was this 'bipartisan budget' that just passed Congress and will be signed shortly by the President. Now reading this post - I wouldn't put it past them - that this somehow fits into their strategy.

Of course we know that they are not really good guys and this would be just a ruse to retain the House or better yet - take over the Senate. Be on the lookout for other false signs of this type of positioning for 2014.

I'm thinking also - that the filibuster rule change in the Senate really spooked them and that they are worried that Harry Reid might push to change the filibuster rule for everything and not just presidential appointments. They don't want to chance that - so they are trying to look more bipartisan now to prevent that.

Am I on to something here or am I all wet on these theories?

[Scuba]

4. No, you're not all wet.

[winter is coming]

2. "we need to sign people up for employer-sponsored plans or IRAs or something along those lines"

How's that going to work for the unemployed and underemployed?

[CTyankee]

5. If they are on SS they are probably "retired" so employer sponsored plans is not in the

equation. Was he talking about company pensions? Then who is this "we"? And the IRA thing was pure fantasy from the very beginning for just about everybody. You have to be wealthy to begin with in order to make that work. Most people haven't been able to contribute much to their IRA's, even if they have them and they weren't seriously depleted by the 2008 crash. Wages are just too low for workers to spare ANY of it to put away in an IRA. The only thing left is Social Security.

Maybe dawn was breaking over marble head as this guy was speaking...