NY Times misstated Republicans' Social Security proposal as attempt to "add" private accounts
SUMMARY: A New York Times article about new Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee radio advertisements on Social Security incorrectly stated that the ads "try to remind those who traditionally vote Republican of their party's plan to add private investment accounts" to the retirement program. In fact, President Bush did not propose adding accounts to the existing system; instead, he proposed allowing workers to divert up to 4 percent of wages (about one-third of their payroll taxes) into a private account, removing it from the money available to pay Social Security benefits for current retirees.
A May 17 New York Times article about new Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee radio advertisements on Social Security incorrectly stated that the ads "try to remind those who traditionally vote Republican of their party's plan to add private investment accounts" to the retirement program. In fact, the president did not propose adding accounts to the existing system; instead, he proposed allowing workers to divert up to 4 percent of wages (about one-third of their payroll taxes) into a private account, removing it from the money available to pay Social Security benefits for current retirees. This diversion creates large transition costs, which the government must cover in order to continue paying already-promised benefits while receiving less revenue from those currently working. As Media Matters has noted, Vice President Dick Cheney has acknowledged that those transition costs would be in the trillions of dollars.
In a February 2, 2005, briefing, a "senior administration official" explicitly contrasted "add-on" accounts with the president's proposed private accounts:
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: I would hasten to point out that this [the president's private-account proposal] is distinct from something like an add-on account, where under an add-on account you actually would have a net new cost because you would have -- you would require resources up front to fund the accounts, but the accounts, themselves, would be creating additional -- or would be a part of an additional program or additional obligations on top of the current Social Security system, rather than addressing existing obligations.
In contrast to the May 17 article, an April 30, 2005, New York Times article described the president's proposal as such:
But in the Senate, where Mr. Bush faces his biggest hurdle on the issue, there was no sign that Democrats would join him in calling for benefit cuts or budge from their unified opposition to the core of the president's approach, his call to allow workers to divert part of their payroll taxes into investment accounts. And if Mr. Bush is relying on public opinion to sway at least a few Democrats and a vital handful of centrist Republicans to come to his side, he has his work cut out for him. Despite 60 days of intensive campaigning by Mr. Bush and other top administration officials, the president's approval rating on the issue has been falling in most polls and voters appear unenthusiastic about his solutions.
From the May 17 New York Times article titled "G.O.P. Voters to Be Target of Radio Ads by Democrats":
House Democrats, trying to capitalize on conservative dissatisfaction with Republicans, are reaching out to Christian voters with radio advertisements critical of Republican proposals to overhaul Social Security.
In a campaign tied to appearances by President Bush on behalf of House candidates later this week, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee has bought time on stations with Christian and conservative audiences to try to remind those who traditionally vote Republican of their party's plan to add private investment accounts to Social Security.
While Republicans have stepped up efforts in recent years to cut into traditional Democratic strength among Catholics, Hispanics and older Americans, among other groups, the radio campaign is a rare effort by Democrats to appeal to a dependable Republican constituency.
Social Security is on such sound footing, we don't need to do anything for the next 30 years or so.
media matters would have been against the establishment of the social security system because there would have been startup costs.
IF those start up costs went to Wall Street and it didnt assure any Security. Like Bush's plan
Any "PLAN" Bush has is assured to further enrich his pals, at the expense of the 'ordinary people'.
Bush's buddy Ken "Kenny Boy" LAY had a great retirement program for ENRON's employees, didn't he? Fill the retirement fund coffers with MILLIONS, then loot the funds and run like the devil, leaving tens of thousands of loyal workers without a penny.
Yup, the "investor class" has lots of great plans for the common folk. Unfortunately, all these plans have the result of enriching the rich while shafting the regular worker.
At least the mindset of these "bidnessmen" is consistent. It also explains the support of the elite, the upper 10%, who ALWAYS benefit. What it does NOT explain is how lacky sycophants like Leatherhelmet continue to support programs which are in the WORST interest of the vast majority of Americans.
Is it ignorance, or something malicious? Is it blind faith, or masochism? Or maybe the answer is simpler: LH is IN the top 10%, and so is in FAVOR of plans which will further enrich himself, while shafting the rest of America. Nothing like SELF INTEREST to motivate a guy, I guess...
ENRON's trip to the dark side did not begin in January, 2001. What the management of that company did was more than criminal and I believe the results of on-going and future trials will prove that. When was their pension plan first set up? And who was responsible for the investment rules? But all was great when the stock market was booming due to the dot con drive and we were making 25-40% per year in a market that has only averaged 8-12% over its history. Oh, we were sooo glad that our investments doubled in a 2-3 year period, not learning from history or past performance. We just knew it would keep going and going and going. Early 2001 opened some eyes and started some discontent and the houses of cards built by the likes of ENRON came tumbling down. "If we don't learn from history, we are bound to repeat it." (author unknown)
yes, because wall street rakes in giant profits from managing these type of accounts..
[link to www.factcheck.org]
"What we have discovered is that the model for Bush's accounts -- the Federal Thrift Savings Plan for federal workers -- actually paid securities firms a net total of only 16 cents for every $10,000 in workers accounts. The TSP had refused to make that information public -- until now. It shows that fees actually being paid to Wall Street are hundreds of times smaller than some critics had assumed."
Just another example of you liberals making false attacks about something which you know nothing about...
If the transistion costs associated with private accounts are as advertised I think the whole think a moneypit. But the bigger issue is Social Security itself. Part of the Welfare state promulgated by liberals, Social Security is a Ponzi scheme, like Amway, that takes away MY money to pay for retirees, many of whom never put in close to the amounts that they receive in welfare, or benefits, excuse me. Right now I pay $177 a month to Social Security, money that I would have to invest, but no, some retiree gets instead. Liberals lie and say Social Security is solvent. It is most certainly not, and will be drained if I make it to age 67 or whatever age it is raised to, probably one I'll never reach. Liberals want Social Security to be a inexorable thing in life, because the money it flows to the government keep them in power, gives them fuel to play with. It is no less than stealing, foisted upon us by FDR, a vastly overrated President who started this money grab. I can spend MY money better than the government. Government NEVER spends wiser than the private citizen, and in keeping this lie called Social Security going, the government is merely preserving it's right to dip into the SS Trust Fund for whatever the heck it deems worthy. As for Mr. Tex's ranting diatribe, his inaccurrate statements of course leave out the truth about taxes. The top 4% of taxpayers pay 50% of income taxes. "Poor" people, those under the $10 an hour poverty rate, pay NO taxes. SO the myth the democrats pass around year to year is an absolute lie. RICH people pay the lion's share of income taxes, rich people hire people, poor people do not hire ANYONE. Rich people employ the army of accountants, money managers, tax professionals, jobs, golly-gee, what a novel thought. Conservatives have known about all the tax and Social Security lies democrats have concocted through the years. We will continue to highlight liberal fallacies and untruths in this area. Thank you