Social Security Vote Delayed Until 2006

[Frodo]

it may be too early to predict that Bush's Social Security plan will go down in flames like the Clinton Health Care plan before it, but this doesn't bode well for him.....

Social Security Vote May Be Delayed
Critics Could Force Proposal to Change

By Mike Allen and Charles Babington
Washington Post Staff Writers
Wednesday, March 2, 2005; Page A01

The Senate's top Republican said yesterday that President Bush's bid to restructure Social Security may have to wait until next year and might not involve the individual accounts the White House has been pushing hard.

The comments of Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.), made as GOP lawmakers returned from a week of trying to sell the plan to voters, underscored the challenge facing the White House, especially in light of unbroken Democratic opposition.

Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid says public forums show that "the president's message is not selling."

"In terms of whether it will be a week, a month, six months or a year, as to when we bring something to the floor, it's just too early," Frist said.

Frist is reluctant to put off a vote until 2006, when lawmakers will be focused on midterm congressional elections and the atmosphere will be more politically charged, aides said. But with polls showing widespread skepticism of Bush's proposal and some Republicans opposed to the approach, GOP leaders signaled yesterday that they may have no choice but to put off action.

That a politician as closely allied to the White House as Frist would even raise the possibility of putting off the proposal until next year -- possibly dooming it -- was an unexpected blow to the administration.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A64253-2005Mar1.html

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

The Democrats got a spine and stood up to the Republican SS plans.
I think the Republicans are in shock.

[Frodo]

 i hope that the leadership of the Democratic Party learns a lesson from this battle -if you stand up for your principles, the other side will buckle.   apply this lesson to other issues on which Republicans are vulnerable, like the environment, health care, and so forth, and we will be well on our way to regaining the majority.  it will be a long hard slog to final victory, but we will know that we are at least on the right track.   

[Richard]

The GOP are just waiting for the 66 senators in 2006.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

The GOP are just waiting for the 66 senators in 2006.

How about 666 Senators? Now, that would really be something.

[The Duke]

'zactly, and i hope that the leadership of the Democratic Party learns a lesson from this battle -if you stand up for your principles, the other side will buckle.   apply this lesson to other issues on which Republicans are vulnerable, like the environment, health care, and so forth, and we will be well on our way to regaining the majority.  it will be a long hard slog to final victory, but we will know that we are at least on the right track.   

Well, that is how you got the majority of the country behind you last time you had it...
























...in 1964.

[Frodo]

The GOP are just waiting for the 66 senators in 2006.

yes, and they'll be waiting for a long time -their efforts to privatize Social Security will backfire on them the way the health care flap backfired on Democrats.   and we will be campaigning on it on up to election day next year, and the Republican Party will wear this issue as an albatross around its neck.  i hope this debate extends to the middle of next year -it'll serve the GOP right when they come to realize how much of a debacle this whole debate is turning into for them.         

[The Duke]

The GOP are just waiting for the 66 senators in 2006.

yes, and they'll be waiting for a long time -their efforts to privatize Social Security will backfire on them the way the health care flap backfired on Democrats.   and we will be campaigning on it on up to election day next year, and the Republican Party will wear this issue as an albatross around its neck.  i hope this debate extends to the middle of next year -it'll serve the GOP right when they come to realize how much of a debacle this whole debate is turning into for them.         

The Democrats have always used social security to attack Republicans.  They won't get any more mileage out of it this time than before.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

The GOP are just waiting for the 66 senators in 2006.

an 11 seat pickup? How?

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

I can't support Bush's wishes because I am not in favor of raising SS taxes on those making >$90k/year, nor am I in favor of borrowing more money.

The best thing they can do is:
1) raise the retirement age by 6 months per year until the retirement age is 75 years old. (This would only apply to those currently younger than 55)
2) adjust payments based solely on inflation and NOT increases in living standards.

---

I would also like to repeal the $60B/year prescription drug benefit program passed by the GOP in 2003.  But if Congress repealed it, they would probably replace it with a much more expensive program.

[Richard]

1) raise the retirement age by 6 months per year until the retirement age is 75 years old. (This would only apply to those currently younger than 55)
2) adjust payments based solely on inflation and NOT increases in living standards.

I like this too.

[opebo]

1) raise the retirement age by 6 months per year until the retirement age is 75 years old. (This would only apply to those currently younger than 55)
2) adjust payments based solely on inflation and NOT increases in living standards.

1) will be incredibly unpopular.  People hate their jobs, they don't want to be stuck there till they die. (male life expectancy is 74.8 years!)

2) will be incredibly unpopular, assuming people aren't so stupid they can't recognize a massive cut.

[Moooooo]

They rushed this thing on the American people to fast.  You cannot just wake up one day and tell the American people you are going to change Social Security.  You'll scare the hell out of them and that is effectivley what Bush has done.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

They rushed this thing on the American people to fast.  You cannot just wake up one day and tell the American people you are going to change Social Security.  You'll scare the hell out of them and that is effectivley what Bush has done.

No, I don't think Bush has scared the majority, but his key support is not going to stand for increased taxes or ballooning the deficit.  Either would create a "crisis" far sooner than Social Security.

I prefer Bush concentrate on Iran and NKorea.  That is the real crisis, IMO.

[Dave from Michigan]

I don't think Bush and the republicans did a good enough job explaining what they wanted to do, which confused people.  And all the democrats had to do was under Bush's plan you will lose all your money or will get less, which wrongly scared people, exspecially old people.

[John Dibble]

1) raise the retirement age by 6 months per year until the retirement age is 75 years old. (This would only apply to those currently younger than 55)
2) adjust payments based solely on inflation and NOT increases in living standards.

I like this too.

Yes, I like the idea of paying the same amount(or more) in and getting less out of it. Sorry, as much as I dislike SS, I still want as much of my money back out of it as possible.

[The Duke]

They rushed this thing on the American people to fast.  You cannot just wake up one day and tell the American people you are going to change Social Security.  You'll scare the hell out of them and that is effectivley what Bush has done.

No, I don't think Bush has scared the majority, but his key support is not going to stand for increased taxes or ballooning the deficit.  Either would create a "crisis" far sooner than Social Security.

I prefer Bush concentrate on Iran and NKorea.  That is the real crisis, IMO.

Bush is on a menaingless jaunt through Europe at exactly the time he needs to be on the Sunday shows and his minions on the cable shows with !ACTUAL NUMBERS! on what his plan means for the average American versus the current system.  By not doing this he has left people uninformed, and scared because they don't understand this major reform of a fundamental social insurance program.

[J.R. Brown]

The GOP are just waiting for the 66 senators in 2006.

an 11 seat pickup? How?

The 11 seat pickup in the Senate isn't going to matter, because the Democrats are going to take back the House.

[The Duke]

The GOP are just waiting for the 66 senators in 2006.

an 11 seat pickup? How?

The 11 seat pickup in the Senate isn't going to matter, because the Democrats are going to take back the House.

Yeah right.  There's not enough competitive districts to even think about that.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

The GOP are just waiting for the 66 senators in 2006.

an 11 seat pickup? How?

The 11 seat pickup in the Senate isn't going to matter, because the Democrats are going to take back the House.

Yeah right.  There's not enough competitive districts to even think about that.

And there's not enough competetive Senate seats up in 2006 to even think about an 11 seat pickup.

[The Duke]

The GOP are just waiting for the 66 senators in 2006.

an 11 seat pickup? How?

The 11 seat pickup in the Senate isn't going to matter, because the Democrats are going to take back the House.

Yeah right.  There's not enough competitive districts to even think about that.

And there's not enough competetive Senate seats up in 2006 to even think about an 11 seat pickup.

Yeah, I'm not sure how Richius figures that.  Either side could gain or lose in the Seante, but since the Democrats are defending a lot of turf (Like your home state) and the small states give the GOP a near permanent advantage in the Senate, I can see a 60+ majority for the GOP someday within the next decade.