Hoyer Seeks Social Security Consensus
EmailABC News’ Rick Klein reports: As if there weren’t enough high-profile issue out there for Congress to tackle, House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer is launching an effort to get his colleagues to touch the traditional “third rail” of politics: Social Security. Hoyer, D-Md., has been working behind the scenes with Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., to find a bipartisan group of lawmakers who are willing to commit to making Social Security reform a priority. Their starting point: That nothing should be ruled in or out. In a speech in Washington today, Hoyer expanded on his vision for reform. “Of our entitlement programs, I believe we would have the easiest challenge in reforming Social Security,” Hoyer said at a Bipartisan Policy Center event on fiscal discipline, according to the text of his speech provided by his House office. Hoyer outlined a few possibilities: “Here, the options are well and widely understood. We can bring in more revenues. We can restrain the growth of benefits, particularly for higher-income workers, while we strengthen the safety net for lower-income workers. And/or we can raise the retirement age, recognizing that our life expectancy is significantly higher today. What is missing here is not ideas — it is political will.” Building that political will is no easy task. As President Bush’s failed attempt to create personal accounts inside Social Security showed, the issue is stuffed with politically perilous code words for members of both parties. In the past, Democrats haven’t been able to whisper about private accounts or benefit cuts without getting hammered. Discussions with Republicans have gotten hung up on whispers of tax increases. Hoyer is trying to break through that, according to a leadership aide. “We’re in the process of seeing if there’s enough will and trust to go forward,” the aide said. “We don’t want to rule anything out, or anything in.” That said, the aide cautioned, it’s “been assumed” that privatization won’t be part of the discussion. “Events have done that for us.” Indeed, even Graham — who has supported private accounts in the past — told The Washington Post’s Lori Montgomery today that the concept is “off the table” because of the stock market’s recent volatility. The discussions between Hoyer and Graham began at the White House fiscal summit in February. Since then, the White House has not been directly involved, according to Hoyer’s office, though the president has committed publicly to the broad goals of entitlement reform. This is all very preliminary, and inaction is far more likely than action. But if Hoyer and Graham are able to round up enough interested members of Congress, their next step would be setting up a process that would involve the president and members of both parties — a step that might just break a longstanding political logjam.
Sen. DeMint: GOP Race Could Go Until Convention 
Obama Avoids Questions on Contraception Rule
In the spirit of openness and honesty, why not start by admitting Social Security is and always was nothing more than a government sanctioned and operated ponzi scheme that anyone else would be arrested for setting up. All ponzi schemes end one way-eventually too few people are paying money in, and too many people are taking money out. More people are retiring and collecting, and there are not enough of us workers to support them.
Admit the truth. For the last 40 years, all excess contributions have been cosnfiscated and spent, theres no money left, were shutting down the system and were on our own. Otherwise, it’s unfair not to give Bernie Madoff a chance to “reform” his ponzi scheme.
Posted by: Ken | May 6, 2009, 3:25 pm 3:25 pm
When they talk about entitlement reform I think Low Rent Housing ,Welfare ,Food Stamps,Medicaid fraud and Earned Income Credit should be on the table.Why take away from the people who have worked all their life to give to some deadbeats who work the system .
Posted by: Johnny L | May 6, 2009, 5:47 pm 5:47 pm
Easy to want to go after social security when you have the retirement plan Congress has for themselves. I worked in the system for 46 years and saw the tax rate increased from 3% to 6.2% on my wages that were subject to SS tax. Also my employer paid an equally amount.Do not call it entitlement when Washington stole from the fund and use the tax rates for political reasons. Just increase the tax rates and the amount subject to taxes. Increase the top limit for medicare and increase the tax.Stop playing political games with the system.With the financial brain trust the President has in place the price can be set to return the fund to much needed levels.
Posted by: William | May 6, 2009, 6:42 pm 6:42 pm
“Reform” is fine as long as they remember the original purpose of the program — SS was intended as an insurance program, not a welfare program.
That is, in your working years, you and your employer pay premiums for insurance against your outliving your income.
Once “means-testing” is introduced, SS is well on its way to being labeled a “welfare program” rather than the insurance policy you paid for. And once it becomes stigmatized as a welfare program, you can be fairly sure you will never see any of it coming to you.
Posted by: observer | May 6, 2009, 7:56 pm 7:56 pm
With the financial brain trust the President has in place the price can be set to return the fund to much needed levels.
—————————————
Obama’s financial brain trust? If you’re hoping for those losers to figure it out, you’re dreaming. SS is an anachronism, and as someone else pointed out, a ponzi scheme. It should be dismantled.
Posted by: Darlene | May 6, 2009, 10:20 pm 10:20 pm
Like we trust any of these politician on either side with Social Security.
Posted by: Ken | May 7, 2009, 12:38 am 12:38 am
The fact is that fewer and fewer people are able to rely on children during their retirement because most women now work. And fewer people have pensions. And fewer people save – and government policies oppose too much saving for fear of economic problems.
So to say that people don’t and shouldn’t rely on Soc. Sec. for their welfare is simply not admitting reality. I’ll rely on it for about 1/3 my retirement income (the rest from pension and savings), which is the fraction many retirement professionals recommend and which will leave me relatively “well off” compared to most.
If Social Security paid 33-50% more I know a lot of poor retirees who would much have happier lives. For myself, I had to pay FICA like everyone else plus an additional 5% of gross pay into my state pension plan. My coworkers (teachers) and I had average middle class incomes and managed to survive without that 5%. If Social Security demanded an extra 5% and it was invested as modern conservative pension funds are, it would provide that 33-50% cushion and result in a much better life for hundred of millions of future retirees who are alive now.
And if there’s to be a change in benefits before I start collecting in three years (what if they change the min. age from 62 to 66?) I’d like to know now. Should I go back to work for several years to bridge the gap? It would be unfair to get major changes dropped in my (and other soon-to-retire people) just before we retire.
Posted by: The_Mick | May 12, 2009, 9:53 am 9:53 am