Quote:
Originally posted by Bad_Rich_Chic
Long rant on SS
|
For the record, let me be clear: I hate what appears to be the Dem party-line position on SS -- "do nothing." SS has a long-term problem. It is one that can be fixed by some tweaks that address the factors that brought that problem about (mainly, longer life spans and smaller families).
I would respect Bush for his determination to address the long-term problem if it didn't seem to me that he has already decided on the solution. And that solution, I fear, imposes greater dangers for SS, imposes huge and dangerous costs elsewhere, is contrary to the very purpose of SS, and is motivated more by ideology than by a well-founded belief that it will cure the problems at issue.
Raise the retirement age. Means testing. Reduce benefits growth, or make the benefit 95% now. These things should be on the table and should be getting discussed. Instead, what's happened is that Bush has made PSRs the centerpiece of every discussion -- and the way he posits the discussion, they are free from any risk (because all investments in the stock market are, right?), and we don't need to consider the cost (because hey, what's another few trillion in borrowings -- especially if they mostly happen after his term ends?). So, he puts it to the Dems to say "no, we should cut benefits" -- because the Bush plan would never, ever need a cut in benefits because we can just borrow the money and rely on the guaranteed returns of the stock market.
So,yes -- the Dems are being cowards. But the White House has set up a situation where that was a foregone conclusion. If a handful of Repubs comes forward with an alternate plan, one that at least puts cuts and changing the retirement age on the table, then I would hope the Dems join in that. BUt without such a Concord Coalition-like effort, it'll never happen.
