ALL IDEAS ARE NOT ON THE TABLE ( for SS)

[rodeodance]

http://www.americanprogressaction.org/site/pp.asp?c=klLWJcP7H&b=617653

> Massive Middle-Class Benefit Cuts
>
> Last night the president proposed deep Social Security benefit cuts for middle-class Americans. He formally "backed a specific plan to reduce future benefits for tens of millions of Americans." Yet in presenting the idea of progressive indexation – a change in law that will give workers less money by tying their benefits to inflation instead of wage growth – President Bush described it as a system "where benefits for low-income workers will grow faster than benefits for people who are better off." Here is the part he skipped: the plan "would reduce annual benefits for an average wage-earner who is 25 today and retires in 2045 by 16 percent.… For an average-earner who retires in 2075, the benefit reduction would be 28 percent."
>
> THE SHELL GAME: There are only two ways to improve Social Security's solvency: either increase the amount of money going into the system or decrease the amount of money leaving the system. If the president's plan solves as much of the system's funding problem as the White House claims it does, then it accomplishes this success through benefit cuts or increases in the payroll tax. Last night, the president dishonestly described his plan in a way that suggested it involves neither of those two options. Not only did the president not acknowledge the sweeping cuts that would be made under his plan, but his definition of a "high wage earner" was equally as misleading. A worker making $58,000 a year – who will see his or her benefits cut by 42 percent under the president's plan – certainly could not be considered "affluent."
>
> WHERE'S THE BEEF?: In praising his plan, President Bush claimed that it guarantees "future generations receive benefits equal to or greater than the benefits today's seniors get." But that isn't an improvement over the current system. The Social Security Administration estimates that the system's reserves will be exhausted by 2041; at that point, "benefits would be almost three-quarters what is currently promised, and considerably higher in inflation-adjusted terms than they are now." Bottom line: "If nothing is done to Social Security, the system will be able to meet the president's promise to ensure that all seniors receive a benefit larger than current levels."
>
> ALL IDEAS ARE NOT ON THE TABLE: Bush was directly asked if he would "consider it a success if Congress were to pass a piece of legislation that dealt with the long-term solvency problem but did not include personal accounts." Bush responded, "I feel strongly that there needs to be voluntary personal savings accounts as a part of the Social Security system. I mean, it's got to be a part of a comprehensive package." His answer reveals the president is more concerned with his ideological agenda than solving Social Security's problems.

[whistle]

1. Ain't going to happen, any neo-conservative republican or...

...for that matter democrat prick that messes with social security benefits by eliminating some of all of them is politically dead.