Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Strategies & Market Trends : Mish's Global Economic Trend Analysis -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: mishedlo who wrote (25216)	3/9/2005 3:39:40 PM
From: RealMuLan	Respond to of 116555

[Not the same article but talked about the same thing]--"GAO chief: Quick action prudent But Social Security not yet in 'crisis'" By William L. Watts, MarketWatch Last Update: 2:09 PM ET March 9, 2005 WASHINGTON (MarketWatch) -- The top congressional policy watchdog said on Wednesday that it would be "prudent" to act quickly to address Social Security's long-term funding shortfall, but warned that private investment accounts wouldn't necessarily solve the entitlement program's fiscal woes. Appearing before the House Ways and Means Committee, Government Accountability Office Comptroller General David Walker said Social Security's projected $3.7 trillion funding gap over the next 75 years represented a "subset" of the fiscal woes the nation faces as the baby boom generation approaches retirement. While the program doesn't face an "immediate crisis," the funding gap "is growing as time passes, and given this and other major fiscal challenges, including expected growth in federal health spending, it would be prudent to act sooner rather than later to reform the Social Security program," Walker added. President Bush has made his call to overhaul Social Security the top item on his domestic agenda. The White House hasn't offered a detailed plan, but the centerpiece of Bush's outline would let workers currently 55 and under divert around two-thirds of their Social Security payroll tax payments into individual retirement accounts. Democrats have been nearly unanimous in opposing that aspect of the plan, arguing it would worsen the nation's fiscal woes by requiring the government to borrow trillions of dollars in coming decades to continue paying promised benefits to current and future retirees. The Bush administration has placed the borrowing costs for the first seven years of the plan at $754 billion. Top Democrats have said they'll negotiate with Bush on Social Security only if he drops his call for accounts that would "carve out" private accounts from payroll revenues. They've said they're open to plans that "add on" accounts on top of the current Social Security system. Walker, under questioning by Rep. Clay Shaw, R-Fla., said a "carve-out" proposal would do nothing on its own to improve Social Security's solvency and would end up bringing the date that the Social Security system begins to see negative cash flow arrive quicker. Currently, the Social Security trustees expect the system to see outlays exceeding revenues beginning in 2018, requiring it to begin redeeming special-issue Treasury bonds to maintain promised benefits. The trustees project that the system will exhaust those bonds in 2042, requiring a 27 percent across-the-board cut in benefits. Rep. Sander Levin of Michigan, the senior Democrat on the panel's Social Security subcommittee, seized on the remarks. "This is a solution that makes the problem worse," he said, referring to the accounts. That drew the ire of Social Security subcommittee chairman Jim McCrery, R-La. He said that while private accounts "by themselves" exacerbate Social Security's cash-flow problems, the key is what other measures are also adopted. Walker, in response, said "carve-out" accounts can be part of a long-term solution if "coupled with other reforms." In his State of the Union speech last month, Bush said he was open to suggestions for benefit cuts, including changing the way traditional benefits are calculated, raising the retirement age and other measures. He's also opened the door to raising the cap -- currently at $90,000 a year -- on income subject to the payroll tax, but has ruled out raising the payroll tax rate from 12.4 percent. Ways and Means Chairman Bill Thomas, R-Calif., criticized Democrats for portraying Bush's plan as likely to cut future benefits. He said that past bipartisan solutions to Social Security funding woes, including a 1983 overhaul, relied on tax hikes as well as benefit cuts. The Social Security system has made promises it can't fulfill, according to Thomas. If Democrats insist on "drawing a line in a sand that benefits promised must be delivered, we're going to have a little bit of a problem moving forward" with a bipartisan solution, he added. Rep. Charles Rangel of New York, the senior Democrat on the panel, said that Bush's accounts proposal was the key obstacle to a bipartisan solution. Private accounts "cannot be on the table if you are looking for bipartisanship," he asserted. William L. Watts covers Congress and politics for MarketWatch. cbs.marketwatch.com

To: mishedlo who wrote (25216)	3/9/2005 3:40:21 PM
From: RealMuLan	Respond to of 116555

And here is the full Transcript for March 6--if you have time to read it<g> Guests: Senator Mitch McConnell, (R-Ky.), Assistant Majority Leader, Republican Whip, Senator Dick Durbin, (D-Ill.), Assistant Minority Leader, Democratic Whip, Mike Allen, Washington Post, Joe Klein, Time Magazine, Paul Krugman, New York Times, Kate O'Beirne, National Review NBC News Updated: 11:41 a.m. ET March 6, 2005 msnbc.msn.com

To: mishedlo who wrote (25216)	3/9/2005 3:42:50 PM
From: RealMuLan	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 116555

Is Bush Carving Out Some Wiggle Room? By Dan Froomkin Special to washingtonpost.com Monday, March 7, 2005; 12:35 PM There are two couldn't-be-more-different ways of introducing private accounts into the Social Security system. You can either take the money out of current Social Security payroll taxes -- that's the "carve-out" model. Or, much less radically, you can create an additional program to supplement Social Security -- that's the "add-on" model. ... According to the transcript of Bush's remarks in New Jersey, he started off conventionally, describing his personal-account proposal to let workers "put 4 percent of the money -- the payroll tax -- aside in a personal account." But then he unveiled a slightly new formulation: "[I]t's your money, and the interest off that money goes to supplement the Social Security check that you're going to get from the federal government." And then, maybe trying to clear things up, he said: "See, personal accounts is an add-on to that which the government is going to pay you. It doesn't replace the Social Security system. It is a part of making -- getting a better rate of return, though, so -- to come closer to the promises made. That's important to know." The Washington Post's Mike Allen explained how Bush's phrasing came as a bit of a stunner to the corps, on NBC's Meet the Press with Tim Russert on Sunday morning: "MR. ALLEN: Well, the president on Friday described private and personal accounts as an add-on to Social Security, something extra. And that set off a lot of bells because Democrats said either he's being deceptive or he's completely changed his negotiating position. I checked on this. The White House says he has not changed anything. They said it's just how it came out and you won't hear that again. "The private accounts/personal accounts/individual accounts is essential to their idea of having more stock owners in the country, which . . . they see it as a stake through the heart of the New Deal. It's not -- you know, this White House talks a lot about changing the goalposts. If you suddenly get add-on accounts, that's the Clinton agenda. And there haven't been a lot of Bush things that were about finishing the Clinton agenda." Bartlett Tries to Explain So was it a slip of the tongue? A trial balloon? An attempt to co-opt his opponents' language? An attempt to confuse the issue? An example of cluelessness? White House counselor Dan Bartlett tried to explain on "Fox News Sunday" but left even anchor Chris Wallace visibly confused. Fox doesn't Web-post transcripts, but here's how it went. Wallace showed the seminal Bush clip then asked: "Mr. Bartlett, that's not right. The president's plan is not an add-on, is it? "BARTLETT: Absolutely. Absolutely. "WALLACE: It's an add-on? "BARTLETT: Absolutely. See, this . . . "WALLACE: Well, wait a minute. Wouldn't it take revenue out of Social Security? "BARTLETT: Well, an add-on in the respect that there is disinformation being spread across the country that there will be no government benefit provided to future retirees. That is absolutely false. Every person who would select and voluntarily take a personal retirement account would be able to still receive benefits from the government. "Added on to that benefit would be the returns from a personal retirement account. So in that essence, it is an add-on. "WALLACE: But forgive me, most people up on Capitol Hill, when they talk about add-ons, are talking about you're going to have your regular, full, unchanged Social Security, and then we're going to add on the idea of personal accounts. "The plan the president's talking about, you would be taking revenues out of Social Security and if you invested in the accounts, you would lose some of your guaranteed benefits under Social Security. "BARTLETT: Well, you're not taking revenues out of Social Security. You're giving those revenues directly to the recipients, allowing it to grow in an account, which is a critical part of making sure that individuals are able to realize. . . . "WALLACE: But they would be putting it in private accounts, not into the . . . "BARTLETT: They would be putting it in personal accounts . . . "WALLACE: Right. "BARTLETT: . . . but that's not to say that would be their only source of income. There would still be a safety net provided by the government to each recipient. "And I think it's people who talk about the fact that there would be no change to the system under their plans is misleading the public. There is going to be changes to the system. We cannot afford the benefits that are being promised to future generations." Fact Check CNN.com posted a "fact check" of Bush's remarks. "Claim: 'It's your money, and the interest off that money goes to supplement the Social Security check that you're going to get from the federal government. Personal accounts is an add-on to that which the government is going to pay you. It doesn't replace the Social Security system. It is a part of getting a better rate of return to come closer to the promises made.' "CNN Fact Check: The statement is misleading. The president says the money from the private account is an 'add-on' to the traditional plan, which implies that a retiree under this plan would receive the same check he or she would normally get under the current system, and additional money from a private account. That is incorrect. "It is true that a retiree who opts for the private account plan would essentially receive two Social Security checks each month: one from the traditional plan (which the president refers to as 'the federal government') and a second from the private account. But the check the retiree would receive from the federal government would be smaller than if the retiree had stayed in the traditional system." So Was It a Trial Ballon? ... washingtonpost.com