WASHINGTON (AP) -- Fresh from a five-state tour promoting his plan to add private accounts to Social Security, President Bush is pledging to go beyond that proposal and push for an overhaul to make the retirement system permanently solvent.
Bush told his weekly radio audience Saturday that the budget he submits to Congress on Monday will hold the growth of discretionary spending below the projected 2.3 percent rate of inflation.
Discretionary programs are ones that Congress must re-approve each year; the White House estimates their cost at $823 billion this year.
"I welcome the bipartisan calls to control the spending appetite of the federal government," Bush said.
He spent the two days after his State of the Union address in rallies around the country to press Congress to back his idea for letting younger workers put up to two-thirds of their Social Security tax contributions into accounts invested in stocks and bonds.
In return, those workers would see an unspecified reduction in their traditional Social Security benefit.
The Social Security system needs radical change to be saved, Bush said, and one step he is proposing are the private accounts.
He said they would give the younger workers allowed to set them up a better rate of return -- without mentioning possible negative results -- and would be something they could pass on to heirs.
"We will make the system a better deal for younger workers by allowing them to save some of their payroll taxes in voluntary personal retirement accounts -- a nest egg they can call their own, which government can never take away," the president said.
He also has acknowledged that more must be done to solve the long-term financial problems of the government retirement program.
"We will make Social Security's finances permanently sound, not leave the task for another day," he said.
Democrats have disputed Bush's assertion the Social Security system is in crisis, pointing out that it is not until 2042 when the system will be able to cover only about 73 percent of benefits owed.
Most also oppose Bush's plan for private accounts, saying they would result in unacceptable benefit cuts, add to the federal debt and speed the program's insolvency.
In his party's weekly radio address Saturday, Democratic National Committee chairman Terry McAuliffe replied: "While Social Security faces challenges, Bush's privatization plan would make things worse.
"Benefit cuts, massive debt and more insecurity are not the type of drastic changes we need to make to our nation's retirement security."
McAuliffe called Bush's approach a "selfish agenda" and said Democrats have a better approach for addressing the problems Social Security faces "down the road."
"Democrats want any plan to solve the Social Security challenge to be rooted in fiscal discipline, with budgets that pay as we go," he said.
"Democrats will insist that any change to the system not result in benefit cuts. On those two principles for the safety and security of America's seniors we will not yield."
Emphasis here:
He spent the two days after his State of the Union address in rallies around the country to press Congress to back his idea for letting younger workers put up to two-thirds of their Social Security tax contributions into accounts invested in stocks and bonds.
1/3rd the money going in, the same amount going out for those taking money, I wonder what could happen because of this...
Manic Progressive: A liberal who violently swings from anger at politicos to despondency over them.
Out Of Context theatre: Ron Paul has repeatedly said he's not a racist. - Destructinator XIII on why Ron Paul isn't racist.
Income, I think, comes exclusively from the SS tax, which will be modified by this insane proposal of Bush's. First, assume the 2005 numbers by the same growth as the last few.
2005 Hypothetical Intake:
~700B
2005 Hypothetical Outlay:
~560B
Not a problem!
But if we were to, hypothetically, have everyone indulge in this 2/3rds into their trust funds(Would be wise; the government won't pay for them, and they'll know it), we slash that intake.
233.3B intake, Worst Case Scenario.
233B to pay a 560B outlay....
A Social Security Crisis in not 30 years, but 1 year. Talk about be careful what you wish for!
Manic Progressive: A liberal who violently swings from anger at politicos to despondency over them.
Out Of Context theatre: Ron Paul has repeatedly said he's not a racist. - Destructinator XIII on why Ron Paul isn't racist.
Income, I think, comes exclusively from the SS tax, which will be modified by this insane proposal of Bush's. First, assume the 2005 numbers by the same growth as the last few.
2005 Hypothetical Intake:
~700B
2005 Hypothetical Outlay:
~560B
Not a problem!
But if we were to, hypothetically, have everyone indulge in this 2/3rds into their trust funds(Would be wise; the government won't pay for them, and they'll know it), we slash that intake.
233.3B intake, Worst Case Scenario.
233B to pay a 560B outlay....
A Social Security Crisis in not 30 years, but 1 year. Talk about be careful what you wish for!
Bit of a stretch, as this requires the pay out on all those stocks to be precisely bubkiss.
My major problem with this is that he's foreseeing a crisis in the system in 37 years. Saying that we have to fix economic problems for 37 years down the line is like saying that LBJ's to blame for the unreadiness of the country for the internet bubble burst.
It also implies a double standard between the fiscal safety of the elderly and the actual stability of our planet's climate.
WE, however, do meddle in the affairs of others.
What part of [ ,, N() ] don't you understand?
Skeptical Armada Cynic: ROU Aggressive Logic
SDN Ranger: Skeptical Ambassador EOD
Mr Golgotha, Ms Scheck, we're running low on skin. I suggest you harvest another lesbian!
SyntaxVorlon wrote:
Bit of a stretch, as this requires the pay out on all those stocks to be precisely bubkiss.
This is true. I don't know how many bonds there are, nor how much they are projected to pay up. Of course, this also completely discounts the money that flows out by the merry hands of people dipping into the fund for a few more pennies.
If you've got info on the bonds, I can try and refine my math to see how much years the system will hold before it implodes under this.
My major problem with this is that he's foreseeing a crisis in the system in 37 years. Saying that we have to fix economic problems for 37 years down the line is like saying that LBJ's to blame for the unreadiness of the country for the internet bubble burst.
Of course, you dirty communist. Are you suggesting LBJ was not responsible?
It also implies a double standard between the fiscal safety of the elderly and the actual stability of our planet's climate.
I think we can safely say the current administration's leaders who understand what 'double standard' means don't care.
Manic Progressive: A liberal who violently swings from anger at politicos to despondency over them.
Out Of Context theatre: Ron Paul has repeatedly said he's not a racist. - Destructinator XIII on why Ron Paul isn't racist.
,
, N(
