No no no! I don’t want means testing, and I don’t want the rich to get less. And I am a Democrat...

Also, just for note-- President Bush has no plan yet. The Plan he presented the other day was something that Andy Card said (the next day) wasn’t Bush’s plan, but something in the direction of Bush’s plan...

Let’s just get the Social Security funding levels back up to where they were after Reagan fixed the system and that alone will save the system...

Well, cutting back (or cutting out) Social Security benefits for the rich makes a certain amount of sense, though, Andrew. After all, the system was created to make sure that elderly people living in poverty had at *something* coming in the door to ease their plight. Rich folks don't need that.

Also, the point of making Social Security taxes (FICA) so regressive (they fall hardest on those with lower incomes) is to make sure that those whose will need the benefits are the ones paying for them. That's basic fairness.

..... Which is why I don't understand why some people in Disneyland-on-the-Potomac yammer about the "unfairness" of FICA. They obviously don't understand that if you lift the cap on earnings subject to FICA taxation, rich people will quite naturally object to having *their* benefits cut, on the basis that *they're* paying for them, too.......

By the way, my name's Hale. "Mr. Adams" was my father. :) I'm only 43, so I can't use the tag-line "Annoying Old Guy", like the other lurker here, annoying as I may be.....

Hail Hale,
Fair enough, sir!
When Reagan set the cap at US$90,000 back in ’83, it was designed to capture 90% of the nation’s income (um, that is, 90% of the income generated by the nation’s citizens). Today, that same dollar amount captures 85% of the same amount. Simply raising the cap a little bit (back to the 90% level) will help insure the solvency for years to come...

Social Security as it stands now is basically “fair”*-- everyone gets out of it more than they put in. Under the Pozen Proposal, this might just change. The Rich will see more of their money go into the system and not get anything (or much) out of it. Then the system might well be dismantled.

The problem is not that SS is about to become bankrupt, the problem is that it is about to call in some debt that the Federal government doesn’t want to pay. Assuming that the
Federal government does pay SS back for the bonds (and barring any general economic collapse), Social Security will be solvent for the foreseeable future

*The fairness of this to those who are still working is a debatable point. But it is fair to those who have worked, or at least, unfair in their favor-- something that they are unlikely to complain about...

I'm still waiting for some kind conservative to explain to me Bush's flip-flop in his speech...You see, he assured America's seniors by telling them that if they worry about stock markets, they WILL be given an option of investing in the safest, most secure investment in the world, US Treasury Bonds, backed by the full faith and credit of the US Gov't.
But then he said that SS is in critical shape because, in part, it runs out of money in 2018 (not 2041), and that it runs out in 2018 because all it has to use after that (to avoid a reduction in benefits) are worthless IOUs.

Of course, those IOUs are...TREASURY BONDS!!! Backed by the full faith and credit of the US Gov't, safest investment in the world!

So which is it?

And please, don't tell me they're "different". The only way in which they are different is that they are not sold on the open market, and cannot be sold on the market. But no one mentions that US Gov't Savings Bonds also cannot be resold on the open market, yet they are considered an extrememly safe, secure investment (from the US Treasury's website: "U.S. Savings Bonds are non-marketable, meaning that they cannot be bought and sold after they are purchased from the government; therefore, there is no secondary market for savings bonds.").

And don't you think the US gov't (GOP or Dem) has an obligation to honor its debts and promises? And back in 1983, Greenspan clearly said taking the funds for general revenue use was only a loan which WOULD be repaid when necessary. Except he now seems perturbed that may mean taxes might have to be raised to repay the debt...

Truth is - a major feature of SS success has been its universality. Everyone who pays in, gets it (or your survivors do). The quickest way to kill SS would be to take it away from the wealthy (who would not even notice it was gone, its such a small portion of their retirement income), and then reduce it by 40-50% for the middleclass, who will then find it of decreasing importance, while leaving it fully funded for the poor (though not increased, as all the TV pundits keep saying for some reason). When that happens it'll be "welfare" and it'll be open season to cut it or delete it (note that Bush is cutting Medicaid this year, what, $40 billion?, dispite growing need in the states...buts its just "free medical care for the poor", right?).

And have you all caught the other Bush flip-flop the last two days?

Last year, after the Medicare Drug bill had passed in Nov '03, the Bushies insisted that participation in the the program would IN NO WAY affect or lower any other Federal benefits (ie. Food Stamps). Indeed, as of yesterday, the USDA website (who administer food stamps) still has a memo clearly stating there would be no reduction for Drug Bill participation. More, the bill itself clearly says no other Federal aid/assistance program can or will be reduced as a result of Drug Bill participation.

So what do the Bushies say yesterday? Seniors who qualify for food stamps (meaning very poor seniors) will have their food stamp qualification reduced, on a roughly 1 for 2 basis, if seniors use the Medicare Drug program!!!

Just a couple of unrelated items (due to the 10 day messaging limit, I can't followup where more appropriate, so here it is...):

1-Conservatives love to claim the economy is doing great, and point to higher than expected job creation last 2-3 months.
Todays Financial Times (http://news.ft.com/cms/s/f269a8f4-c173-11d9-943f-00000e2511c8,ft_acl=,s01=2.html) says "Real wages fall at fastest rate in 14 years", noting the Employment Cost Index (1 of 3 wage measurements, but considered the most accurate) shows real wages fell 0.9% last qtr of 2004, to an annual rate of 2.4%, while inflation was 3.1%!
More, they note "Even after last month's bumper gain in employment, there are 22,000 fewer private sector jobs than when the recession began in March 2001, a 0.02 per cent fall.", and that "At the same point in the recovery from the recession of the early 1990s, private sector employment was up 4.7 per cent."

2-For those conservatives who claim I just made up the stories last year about US troops lacking protective equipment, lets note, shall we, that the US Army IG has estimated 70% of all deaths/injuries are from IEDs (roadside bombs), and that half of all of those deaths/injuries were made worse or preventable had our soldiers had body armor and/or been in uparmored HumVees (even today, only 18% of the Marine's HumVees are uparmored). Its reached its peak now in Oklahoma, where the state legislature (http://www.lsb.state.ok.us/house/news7231.html) recognized it: "The Oklahoma House of Representatives recently passed legislation to create "Patriot Plates," special license plates which help buy body armor for Oklahoma troops sent to Iraq.

For every $35 plate purchased, the state will donate twenty bucks to a special fund to buy bulletproof vests and other pieces of armor to keep soldiers safe.

The legislation was proposed by State Rep. Ryan Kiesel, who said he got the idea after meeting with soldiers from his district. "They were being sent to Afghanistan or Iraq with no body armor or Vietnam-era body armor."

A good idea, helps the troops...but why didn't they have the necessary equipment BEFORE they went to war? And why don't they have it TWO YEARS into the war???
Bye bye...