Bush social security index plan comes from Democrat
Plus a few more 'facts' about it
from 
JoeUser Forums
JoeUser Forums
I know (without even having to look, I know) that a certain Clueless Old Liberal has been ranting and raving about the proposed indexing scheme that President Bush proposed as part of the fix for Social Security. That same CO... ooops, don't want to name names, lets just stick with the C.O.L. moniker, hasn't let facts (which could be easily verified and obtained by going to www.factcheck.org) get in the way of the rants. Just for the sake of facts, the article that clears up the misconceptions is here: Bush Proposes Slowing Growth of Social Security Benefits for Future Retirees Democrats call it a "cut." Compared to what?
Anyway, there's a few other "facts" that are very pertinent to the discussion and any attempt by any C.O.L. to tar-and-feather the Commander-in-Chief/President of the United States that are worth noting.
First, it should be notied that the Bush "indexing" plan is the brainchild of one Mr. Robert C. Pozen, economist, who served on the President's 2001 Social Security commission. Mr. Pozen just happens to be -- shudder -- A DEMOCRAT.
It's Mr. Pozen's proposal that was touted as changing the way Social Security benefits are calculated for lower-income workers while scaling back increases for upper-income workers.
Mr. Pozen's plan has met with general acceptance by organizations such as political think tank The Cato Institute. An article in The Washington Times notes that Mr. Michael Tanner, direct of Cato's Social Security privitization project doesn't endorse the entire Pozen plan because Mr. Tanner would rather see a larger personal account option available than Mr. Pozen's plan calls for.
Meanwhile, in a memorandum written by the Social Security Administration's chief actuary -- a title that has been much ballyhooed by a certain C.O.L. in the attempts to mis-state the impact and effect of the Bush proposal -- it was noted that under Mr. Pozen's plan, "the program would be expected to be financially solvent for the forseeable future."
I've ignored for the most part the continued Bush bashing articles that demand the Pres. Bush be accountable for everything under the sun, and which proclaim doom and gloom for as far as the eye can see under the Bush administration's policies in every area. With that said, I've seen the C.O.L. respond, much like most liberals and especially the Democrats in Congress, ignoring facts and using scare tactics to try to shore up support for their side. I'm sorry, but the arguments just don't wash and are not based in truth and fact.
There are some brave individuals, such as Mr. Pozen (and President Bush), that are willing to set politics aside in an effort to solve problems and fix the broken system. These people deserve credit for the efforts, and should not have their efforts mis-characterized and used to slander and malign the leader of this country.
Finally, given the words of Mr. Goss referenced above (the Social Security Administration's chief actuary), and the usual bleeting argument among one particular C.O.L. that balancing the budget is the end-all and be-all of everything that must be done in this country, I would think the proposal deserves even more credit and weight on it's merits, rather than being used in YET ANOTHER CONTINUOUS BUSH BASHING diatribe.
But that's just my opinion and I could be wrong, or called on the carpet for apparently making personal attacks, blah blah blah.
Anyway, there's a few other "facts" that are very pertinent to the discussion and any attempt by any C.O.L. to tar-and-feather the Commander-in-Chief/President of the United States that are worth noting.
First, it should be notied that the Bush "indexing" plan is the brainchild of one Mr. Robert C. Pozen, economist, who served on the President's 2001 Social Security commission. Mr. Pozen just happens to be -- shudder -- A DEMOCRAT.
It's Mr. Pozen's proposal that was touted as changing the way Social Security benefits are calculated for lower-income workers while scaling back increases for upper-income workers.
Mr. Pozen's plan has met with general acceptance by organizations such as political think tank The Cato Institute. An article in The Washington Times notes that Mr. Michael Tanner, direct of Cato's Social Security privitization project doesn't endorse the entire Pozen plan because Mr. Tanner would rather see a larger personal account option available than Mr. Pozen's plan calls for.
Meanwhile, in a memorandum written by the Social Security Administration's chief actuary -- a title that has been much ballyhooed by a certain C.O.L. in the attempts to mis-state the impact and effect of the Bush proposal -- it was noted that under Mr. Pozen's plan, "the program would be expected to be financially solvent for the forseeable future."
I've ignored for the most part the continued Bush bashing articles that demand the Pres. Bush be accountable for everything under the sun, and which proclaim doom and gloom for as far as the eye can see under the Bush administration's policies in every area. With that said, I've seen the C.O.L. respond, much like most liberals and especially the Democrats in Congress, ignoring facts and using scare tactics to try to shore up support for their side. I'm sorry, but the arguments just don't wash and are not based in truth and fact.
There are some brave individuals, such as Mr. Pozen (and President Bush), that are willing to set politics aside in an effort to solve problems and fix the broken system. These people deserve credit for the efforts, and should not have their efforts mis-characterized and used to slander and malign the leader of this country.
Finally, given the words of Mr. Goss referenced above (the Social Security Administration's chief actuary), and the usual bleeting argument among one particular C.O.L. that balancing the budget is the end-all and be-all of everything that must be done in this country, I would think the proposal deserves even more credit and weight on it's merits, rather than being used in YET ANOTHER CONTINUOUS BUSH BASHING diatribe.
But that's just my opinion and I could be wrong, or called on the carpet for apparently making personal attacks, blah blah blah.
