Evaluation of the policies of George W. Bush and his Republican conservatives on America.
Lets consider some added ways to fund the system!
Published on January 6, 2005 By COL Gene In Politics
Another major priority of the Bush administration appears to be Social Security. President Bush and his staff have been closed mouth as to the exact proposals they plan to recommend. Now the camel's nose is beginning to appear under the tent.

First we heard that the 2% diversion of worker Social Security taxes to private accounts might be recommended. That was immediately followed by where is the money to come from to allow Social Security taxes to be diverted into private accounts? Again the answer begins to appear by Mr. Bush saying no tax increases to pay for the transition cost to partially privatize the system. Now we are hearing a 4% option which would double the amount of the transition funds required and again no real explanation as to where these monies would come from.

Within the last several days we have heard about increasing the retirement age and cutting back benefits more significantly in the out years to pay for the transition costs. That also seems to imply that Bush intends to borrow the transition costs and repay them at some future time by reduced payouts and increased retirement age. Who will pay the interest on any borrow transition funding? In other words it looks as if he is proposing the very same solution he has for everything else and that is borrow and pay some time in the future.

Many people believe that the federal government misspent some of their Social Security taxes and that is the reason why the trust fund is not large enough to cover the baby boomer retirement. Some years ago, I obtained my parents Social Security lifetime statements and compared the amount of tax they and their employers paid over the years with the money they received from Social Security. This analysis made it crystal clear why the Social Security trust fund is not large enough to deal with the baby boomers. Although my parents were covered by Social Security from its inception my mother in the 18 years that she drew Social Security received 20 times more in benefits than both she and her employers paid into the system. My father, who received Social Security for 26 years, got about 27 times more money than he and his employers paid into the system.

So before we become too critical of how our Social Security taxes have been used lets take a look at who has received them. No investment, including the Bush equity plan for Social Security, would have generated the income necessary to pay 20 to 30 times the amount contributed to the system. In fact when I looked at my parents Social Security statements I found that during the 30s 40s 50s and 60s the amount paid into the system was very small. Thus, even if it had been invested in equities the way George W. Bush is suggesting, they still would not have had nearly enough money to receive what they got from the Social Security System. In addition, where would the account maintenance fees come from? That is certainly a question that needs to be asked of President Bush. For the small taxpayer even today, an investment of five or six hundred dollars per year will see a great deal of the added income that Bush is touting as a solution paid to investment bankers. How will that help the workers making an average income? Today the White House admitted that the creation of the individual accounts Bush wants will not solve the funding needs of Social Security.

We should be looking at other ways to resolve the funding issue with Social Security. All we're looking at is what Bush proposed. When the President selected the members of the Social Security Commission he made sure all the members shared his notion of the individual accounts and other possible suggestions were not considered. Below are specific alternative suggestions to provide the funding necessary for Social Security without borrowing more money:



Stop any attempt to extend Social Security benefits to illegal aliens.

Continue the gradual increase of full retirement to age 70.

Consider limiting the payout to retirees with non-Social Security income above $150,000 per year. When a retired couple has non-Social Security income above $150,000 per year (index this amount each year by cost of living), the benefits under Social Security would end at the point when the individual’s contribution had been completely returned to the taxpayer. For example, if an individual during their lifetime paid $70,000 in Social Security taxes, excluding their employer contribution, their Social Security payments would terminate if their non-Social Security income exceeded the maximum amount when they reach a total payout of $70,000 in this example.

Should a retiree’s non-Social Security income fall below the maximum amount, the Social Security payments would resume based on their original entitlement so long as their non-Social Security income remained below the maximum amount.

Re-examine the option to set aside 2% or 4% of their Social Security tax to individual accounts. Issues to be evaluated should include:

Evaluate whether or not the creation of these individual accounts will make Social Security solvent. If the creation of these individual accounts does not solve he funding issues of Social Security, then why create massive change to the existing system? Look at the Transition costs to supplant the removal of the younger workers 2 % or 4% of their taxes into individual accounts. Develop realistic estimates as to the transition costs. Identify the source needed to fund this transition amount before deciding to implement this change without borrowing more money.

Consider the impact on a worker who selects the private account option wherein the value of their account at the time of retirement was less than the total benefits that would be paid under the traditional Social Security amount. Would there be a provision to subsidize the payment of the amount received under the individual retirement option to bring it equal to the traditional Social Security benefit?

Evaluate an alternative to the individual equity account that would allow portions of the Social Security Trust Fund to be invested in stock market index funds. This would provide the advantage of increased earnings equity investments produce without the high cost to maintain millions of small accounts that would be required under the individual account concept. This idea has been successfully used by every state pension fund of the United States as well as many large corporate pension plans. Lift the income limit upon which Social Security taxes are paid to include all earned income similar to the current Medicare tax. This additional revenue would increase the Trust Fund and with the higher earnings from investing in equities should fund the system without borrowing more money!


Comments (Page 2)
3 Pages1 2 3 
on Jan 06, 2005
Oh, one last note here... I've purposely ignored the additional comments about education and biographical information.

The COL's (Clueless Old Liberal's) writings speak for themselves, as do my own words. I don't have a need to sit and document my education and employment history to justify why someone should believe anything I've typed or feel that my words should carry more weight than any other.

I state my opinion, perhaps offer some snippets of others opinions or news articles with my own commentary included along side, and then let people make up their own minds or learn from what was written.

If people feel the need to be mis-guided by someone that claims to be highly educated or has a history dating back to failed policies of the past, that's their own inadequacy at work, not mine.
on Jan 06, 2005
Reply #18 By: COL Gene - 1/6/2005 5:48:37 PM
When the majority see the impact of what Bush is doing, there will be a back lash at the polls.


Keep believing that and keep chanting that mantra. I seem to recall you making the same claims prior to this past election, and it did you absolutely no good. Please keep it going though, because whatever you and your liberal friends have been doing has clearly worked very well - FOR THE REPUBLICANS.
on Jan 06, 2005
Colonel, well said. Bush is not a tyrant, but given his penchant for loyalty at all costs, I sometimes think he comes pretty damned close. But no, he's no tyrant. And, I do beg to differ from you. I do not think Bush is a strong leader. I think he is propped up by his neocon advisors, who are actually doing some modicum of his bidding, while letting them have a pretty free reign (no pun intended ). If he was such a strong leader, he'd not need the loyalty above all costs so badly. He'd put more faith into good policy and common sense. I think that Bush is a very weak leader backed by corporate interests, who are in his pocket. Hence, the outcry to privatize social security. Think of what a Ken Lay type would do to SS. Think about Ken Lay as one of Bush's best buddies, who has yet to serve a minute in jail for fleecing billions of dollars, while Martha sits in a stinkin' prison for making a few thousand dollars. No, Bush is a completely weak lunatic who happens to have won the hearts and minds of 50% of American jingoists.

SAVE SOCIAL SECURITY. PRIVATIZE BUSH.

on Jan 06, 2005
One more thing...................

drmiler & terp........................ you have succeeded over and over in removing all doubts. You are complete ignoramuses.
on Jan 06, 2005
When the majority see the impact of what Bush is doing, there will be a back lash at the polls. Many who voted for Bush, for what ever reason, do so at their own peril. I hate to disappoint some of you but I have been a Republican for more than 40 years. I am however from the Republican belief that we balance the federal budget not charge and spend. There are certain social programs that are important for society and I'm not willing to just cut then to give the wealthy a tax cut they do not need. I guess some call me a Rockefeller Republican. In any event I'm not a conservative and neither are most of those who say they are. No real fiscal conservative would ever accept the Bush economic and fiscal policy.
on Jan 06, 2005
Yes, Grandfather, they do show their true nature when they open their mouth (or Blog in this case)!
on Jan 06, 2005
I know sir, how about we include vets who are members of Congress in all the "anti double dipping" laws from which they have exempted themselves. Then we'll tell Congress that the only way they can collect a pension is after at least 20 years of public service. Then, we should tell members of Congress that, if they want healthcare, they will either have to buy into the same program as all other government employees, or they can choose to be seen by the VA. The money "saved" by not letting members of Congress elevate themselves above the rest of us may not "save" Social Security, but it would go a lot further their than where it's going now. ;~D

Of course Social Security is probably doomed anyway, since any attempts to work the problem one side will undoubtedly be blocked by whichever party's guy doesn't sit in the big chair in the oval office (for fear of actually having to congratulate the opposition for accomplishing something).

For me, I'm expecting that some congressmen will notice how much money would be saved if they decided that military retirees shouldn't "double dip" by collecting both our pensions AND Social Security. ;~D
on Jan 06, 2005
Another interesting post by terpfan1980 and drmiler, who simply blow the topic off with drivel and no substance. You just label liberal and leave.
on Jan 06, 2005
paraTed2K

Yes, Congress is "do as I say not as I do". I retired from the school system and the military and in total receive about 50% of what I made while working. If you add in my Social Security my retirement income is about 70% of my working income. If it were not for my investments and the savings I put away for almost 35 years, I would be in a much worse financial situation. One thing we must do is convince our children and grandchildren they MUST put some money away for retirement. Too many are not saving anything. The savings rate is the lowest in our history!
on Jan 06, 2005
Consider the impact on a worker who selects the private account option wherein the value of their account at the time of retirement was less than the total benefits that would be paid under the traditional Social Security amount. Would there be a provision to subsidize the payment of the amount received under the individual retirement option to bring it equal to the traditional Social Security benefit?


Personally I don't agree with you on this point. If a person wants to gamble their money away, why should I pay for it? It may sound heartless of me but it is reality. The SS program was built to protect the average Joe from losing their shirt to investments. I am afraid that some poor soft hearted people will want to bail these gamblers out when the next great stock market crash comes. As you can tell, I'm not a fan of this change. At least the program is optional, and that's a good point. But please all you knuckleheads that want this program don't come crawling back to me wanting my SS (if there is any left).

I say don't subsidize a penny.

COL Gene, keep writing what you want. I don't agree with 95% of what you post, but if I don't want to hear you I just don't click on your post.

drmiller and terpfan, please keep it down a little. Lately you’re starting to sound like everything I hate about the loony left. Just remember the old saying is "You attract more flies with honey". I'll not saying just roll over. I'm saying step back, relax, and reply in a more constructive way. Because sometimes lately I am finding it hard to want to openly support some of your points.

That's My Two Cents
on Jan 06, 2005
Lee1776

I will have to try and get that % UP! I just asked the question about subsidizing the accounts. I too believe you must accept the outcomes of the choices we make. I do believe the issue of the fees on these small accounts needs an answer. The cost to maintain millions of individual accounts will be high relative to the amount the average person will invest at 2 or 4%. We also need to come up with the funding before stepping off into the blue!
on Jan 06, 2005
Reply #24 By: Citizen whoman69 - 1/6/2005 7:43:05 PM
Another interesting post by terpfan1980 and drmiler, who simply blow the topic off with drivel and no substance. You just label liberal and leave.


I note you've not commented at all in my prior posts on this subject matter, where you might find I'm not that far from solutions you may --- shudder --- even agree with.

Try reading and commenting there.
on Jan 06, 2005
I note you've not commented at all in my prior posts on this subject matter, where you might find I'm not that far from solutions you may --- shudder --- even agree with.

Try reading and commenting there.


Fair enough, tell me the names of the threads or post a link and I'll take a look see.
on Jan 07, 2005
Fair enough, tell me the names of the threads or post a link and I'll take a look see.


Blog is: here

Threads: AARP and (others) fear-mongering on Social Security

Social Security, Lobbyists already hard at work

Bush plans: Social Security Formula Weighed (from Wash Post)

Reforming Social Security (why we must...)

Excellent column on Social Security Reform, and more...

This last one included this:

"Insightful" rating bonus to Sen. Graham. The plan he is proposing is very similar to suggestions I personally made in a post-election e-mail to Pres. Bush and Vice President Cheney (which I'm sure was simply forwarded to staffers for a quick non-response).

Raising the current income limit on the FICA tax is a very quick and simple fix to get a lot of revenue into the Social Security system in a hurry. It hurts upper income people, but not in a bad way, and would definitely be something that the populace can support (as it would be seen as a "soak the rich" type grab for revenue). It gets back to the idea of a "flat tax" system where everyone pays the same percentage of their income for every dollar of income they make. The current cap makes no sense in that it serves only to keep the government from taking "too much" revenue from contributors to social security, which I guess was intended to make social security seem more like an insurance program -- something it hasn't been in many years now.

The other parts of Graham's proposal are obviously (as noted in Novak's column) intended to drive up support from the liberal side. Bringing in any "name" Democrat would go a long way to making the proposal bi-partisan, and easier to sell to constituents.



You could also take a detour here: Bring back fiscal sanity - PLEASE!!!
Budget bill has $15.8B in extras
if you are so inclined.


If you want info from other sites, there's this: www.dbsforums.com where I had started a thread with this title: The bigger issue: social security...., which included this info:

This is one of the biggest issues facing us in the next several decades.

The "because the current Consumer Price Index overstates inflation" worries me since Greenspan has been so hawkish in trying to control inflation that he has helped to create recessions in the past. Ignoring that though....


How should the problem be solved? Raise retirement age again? Will that work given a lot of employers tendencies to shy away from hiring or keeping older, typically more well-compensated, employees? (Why hire older, when you can hire younger, cheaper, and train to fit?!, or so it seems for many employers).


Personally, (hope Dan Collins is paying attention here), I'd rather see it fixed in a combination of different ways:

1. Take social security taxes/contributions out of EVERY dollar of income, rather than just the first X amount of the Y income levels. I don't recall current numbers, but at somewhere near 85k per year, Social Security contributions are "maxed out" and are no longer collected from an employee. That holds rather the employee makes 84k per year, or 184k per year. Only the first X amount is clipped for Social Security, and the rest is left alone (or is simply taxed for every other tax).
My thoughts are that if you make money, you pay the contribution, no matter how much you make.

2. Needs test social security. If you have more than 24k of income, your social security payments are reduced, and the reduction scales up dependent upon your income level. At more than 120k of income (indexed for inflation in future years), your social security benefits are suspended until your income drops below that level.
Review income levels monthly and yearly to determine benefit levels so that someone that has an immediate need for benefits can get them quickly.

Between both items above, we move social security back into being an INSURANCE PROGRAM (which it originally was) and away from being an entitlement program.

People should get benefits if *needed*, but not simply because they paid into the system. They should be using 401-Ks, company/employer retirement plans, and other means of paying for their retirements.

Those that need social security should get it, but those that have enough income and no immediate need for the money should let it sit for as long as possible.
on Jan 07, 2005
If you look at my suggestions you will see that I suggest the following:

Increase the retirement age. Simple fact- people are living longer.

Increase the money comming into the trust fund by taxing all earned income

Invest the added revenue generated from taxing all earned income ( earned income above $90,000) in Stock Index Funds. That provides the benefits of highet potential earnings from equity investments while avoiding the added expense of maintaining millions of small accounts.

Apply a means test to the Social Security Benefits to protect the Social Security Benefits for those that NEED it to live in their "Golden Years".

This solution does not add more debt that would add more cost in the form of interest on the borrowed money to convert the system to these small individual accounts and has worked in EVERY State Pension system in this country! Why not for Social Security????????
3 Pages1 2 3