GOP Is Divided on Social Security Push
from 
JoeUser Forums
JoeUser Forums
From The Washington Post, link here: GOP Is Divided on Social Security Push
By Jonathan Weisman and Jim VandeHei
Washington Post Staff Writers
Friday, January 7, 2005; Page A04
Amid deep divisions over the White House push to restructure Social Security, congressional Republicans told President Bush yesterday that the administration is damaging its legislative prospects with leaks signaling the need for deep cuts in benefits.
GOP leaders from the House and the Senate met with Bush at the White House to discuss Social Security, and the divisions were clear, according to participants.
House leaders, backed by House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Bill Thomas (R-Calif.), said the president has to issue a detailed plan to restructure Social Security and add personal investment accounts, then sell it himself before he could possibly hope to get broad Republican support.
"The president has got to lead," said Rep. Jim McCrery (R-La.), chairman of the House Ways and Means subcommittee on Social Security. "He's got to take the bully pulpit on this and be the professor. We can be teaching assistants, but he has to be the big guy."
Senate leaders, backed by Finance Committee Chairman Charles E. Grassley (R-Iowa), said the White House should leave it to Congress to work quietly on a bipartisan Social Security package that is not explicitly the president's.
"Congress has to do the hard work, not put it all on the president," said Sen. Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.), a Bush ally who accused some lawmakers of "acting like a bunch of children" hiding behind their father. "If it becomes a Bush bill, I think it would turn into a game of throwing rocks at President Bush."
After four years of speaking about Social Security changes in lofty generalities, Bush found himself this week confronting the difficult specifics.
Even before he became president, Bush had advocated allowing younger workers to divert a portion of their Social Security taxes to personal investment accounts. But he never detailed the cuts to guaranteed benefits that may be necessary to close the gap between the Social Security benefits owed to retiring baby boomers and the taxes paid by a dwindling workforce. Nor has he said how the plan would be financed, since any Social Security taxes diverted to investment accounts would have to come out of benefits owed to current retirees and disabled workers.
Republicans say the fledgling debate has not started on the GOP's strongest ground. Instead of arguing whether younger workers should be allowed to invest their taxes in stocks and bonds, Washington is focusing on the size of the benefit cuts the White House is contemplating, congressional Republicans say.
"We are not prepared to answer" these questions, a senior House GOP leadership aide said of the benefit-cut ideas.
"They don't like the way the case is being laid out," said David C. John, a Social Security analyst at the Heritage Foundation who has close ties to the White House. "There's a feeling that they're leading with their chin."
On Tuesday, The Washington Post reported that Bush had signaled his support for a change in the calculation of Social Security benefits that would cut guaranteed payments by a third to nearly half over the century. Then, on Wednesday, a memo from a top Bush aide leaked out, and it made the case for benefit cuts explicit.
"You may know that there is a small number of conservatives who prefer to push only for investment accounts and make no effort to adjust benefits -- therefore making no effort to address [the] fundamental structural problem" of Social Security, Peter Wehner, Bush's director of strategic initiatives, wrote in a private message to conservative allies. "In my judgment, that's a bad idea."
Instead, Wehner promoted changing the formula that establishes initial Social Security benefit levels, which is based on the growth of wages over a worker's lifetime. Such "wage indexing" has guaranteed robust growth in Social Security benefits because wages tend to grow faster than the economy.
... more at linked article
Perhaps surprisingly, I actually agree with the gist of the article. Especially in the statements made by Sen. Linsey Graham noting that "If it becomes a Bush bill...."
Still, the President is the one that has to sell the plan and convince the public that not only is it needed, but it's the right fix at the right time.
I don't agree with all of the basics of the plan that was reported on in the last week or so, where benefits would be adjusted. I still personally believe that benefits should be left alone, and any changes there-in should be minimized. Far better (in my mind) to adjust the caps on maximum salary that is taxed for contributions and place more burden "on the wealthy" than to cut back on benefits that people will need later in life in order to maintain any reasonable standard of living.
I expect along the way that the plans will be merged and take a little here and a little there, all in the name of compromise. But between now and then, I think we need to continue to monitor the situation, and continue to lobby - via letter writing to our congress people, phone calls to them, and grass roots effforts - for the types of changes we are in favor of.
By Jonathan Weisman and Jim VandeHei
Washington Post Staff Writers
Friday, January 7, 2005; Page A04
Amid deep divisions over the White House push to restructure Social Security, congressional Republicans told President Bush yesterday that the administration is damaging its legislative prospects with leaks signaling the need for deep cuts in benefits.
GOP leaders from the House and the Senate met with Bush at the White House to discuss Social Security, and the divisions were clear, according to participants.
House leaders, backed by House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Bill Thomas (R-Calif.), said the president has to issue a detailed plan to restructure Social Security and add personal investment accounts, then sell it himself before he could possibly hope to get broad Republican support.
"The president has got to lead," said Rep. Jim McCrery (R-La.), chairman of the House Ways and Means subcommittee on Social Security. "He's got to take the bully pulpit on this and be the professor. We can be teaching assistants, but he has to be the big guy."
Senate leaders, backed by Finance Committee Chairman Charles E. Grassley (R-Iowa), said the White House should leave it to Congress to work quietly on a bipartisan Social Security package that is not explicitly the president's.
"Congress has to do the hard work, not put it all on the president," said Sen. Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.), a Bush ally who accused some lawmakers of "acting like a bunch of children" hiding behind their father. "If it becomes a Bush bill, I think it would turn into a game of throwing rocks at President Bush."
After four years of speaking about Social Security changes in lofty generalities, Bush found himself this week confronting the difficult specifics.
Even before he became president, Bush had advocated allowing younger workers to divert a portion of their Social Security taxes to personal investment accounts. But he never detailed the cuts to guaranteed benefits that may be necessary to close the gap between the Social Security benefits owed to retiring baby boomers and the taxes paid by a dwindling workforce. Nor has he said how the plan would be financed, since any Social Security taxes diverted to investment accounts would have to come out of benefits owed to current retirees and disabled workers.
Republicans say the fledgling debate has not started on the GOP's strongest ground. Instead of arguing whether younger workers should be allowed to invest their taxes in stocks and bonds, Washington is focusing on the size of the benefit cuts the White House is contemplating, congressional Republicans say.
"We are not prepared to answer" these questions, a senior House GOP leadership aide said of the benefit-cut ideas.
"They don't like the way the case is being laid out," said David C. John, a Social Security analyst at the Heritage Foundation who has close ties to the White House. "There's a feeling that they're leading with their chin."
On Tuesday, The Washington Post reported that Bush had signaled his support for a change in the calculation of Social Security benefits that would cut guaranteed payments by a third to nearly half over the century. Then, on Wednesday, a memo from a top Bush aide leaked out, and it made the case for benefit cuts explicit.
"You may know that there is a small number of conservatives who prefer to push only for investment accounts and make no effort to adjust benefits -- therefore making no effort to address [the] fundamental structural problem" of Social Security, Peter Wehner, Bush's director of strategic initiatives, wrote in a private message to conservative allies. "In my judgment, that's a bad idea."
Instead, Wehner promoted changing the formula that establishes initial Social Security benefit levels, which is based on the growth of wages over a worker's lifetime. Such "wage indexing" has guaranteed robust growth in Social Security benefits because wages tend to grow faster than the economy.
... more at linked article
Perhaps surprisingly, I actually agree with the gist of the article. Especially in the statements made by Sen. Linsey Graham noting that "If it becomes a Bush bill...."
Still, the President is the one that has to sell the plan and convince the public that not only is it needed, but it's the right fix at the right time.
I don't agree with all of the basics of the plan that was reported on in the last week or so, where benefits would be adjusted. I still personally believe that benefits should be left alone, and any changes there-in should be minimized. Far better (in my mind) to adjust the caps on maximum salary that is taxed for contributions and place more burden "on the wealthy" than to cut back on benefits that people will need later in life in order to maintain any reasonable standard of living.
I expect along the way that the plans will be merged and take a little here and a little there, all in the name of compromise. But between now and then, I think we need to continue to monitor the situation, and continue to lobby - via letter writing to our congress people, phone calls to them, and grass roots effforts - for the types of changes we are in favor of.