Ramesh Ponnuru of the National Review has an Op Ed column in the New York Times. Here are some excerpts:
Democrats will probably get their way on most policy matters over the next two years, but bipartisan accomplishments won’t be easy. ...I agree that stalemate is a likely outcome. Otherwise, this is ridiculous. All Republicans have to do is to give up on privatizing Social Security and Democrats will agree to a solution that relies solely upon benefit cuts? What kind of fantasy world does Ponnuru live in? Privatizing Social Security is way beyond dead. It is no bargaining chip. Ponnuru seems to have trouble understanding that the Republican party has only very limited power in Washington.
Take Social Security, which President Obama has suggested he wants to reform. A strategy that is supported only by Democrats could result in their having to take full responsibility for a tax-heavy bill, and some would balk at that prospect. This means that the most likely result is inaction. ...
The stalemate continues today. To break it, each side will have to give up at least one cherished goal. Republicans must accept that Mr. Bush’s dream of letting individuals invest Social Security funds is dead. In return, Democrats will need to take tax increases off the table. ...
This compromise seems more likely than other solutions (though less likely than further stalemate) , in part because both sides should agree that solvency will require reductions in the growth of benefits. Progressive price indexing is a good option. Under current policy, tomorrow’s retirees get greater benefits than today’s. Progressive indexing would keep that rule for low-income workers. Benefits for high-income workers would, on the other hand, keep up only with inflation. This policy should be palatable to Democrats. If they agree to take the remaining steps to make the program solvent without tax increases, then Republicans should agree to finance the “add-on” savings accounts that Democrats favor.
7 comments:
You're right, privatization is dead. And why are we even talking about so-called "entitlement reform" now anyway?
We have to reform our healthcare system if we want to save Medicare and lumping Medicare and Social Security together under the "entitlement" umbrella was a Bush administration strategy to create a sense of crisis.
Obama's right...we know how to solve Social Security's long-term financing imbalance. This concept of a "Grand Bargain" sound like another way to solve the current economic mess on the backs of Social Security and Medicare.
http://www.ncpssm.org/entitledtoknow/?p=385
Why don't the Democrats give up on a FICA tax increase? Just what the economy doesn't need is higher taxes.
Thank God the Democrats do not have a filibuster proof majority in the Senate.
Republicans and or independents like you are the reason this country is suffering.
"Republicans and or independents like you are the reason this country is suffering."
Once again if it wasn't for Barney Frank and Maxine Waters and other Democrats putting pressure on banks to lend to people that couldn't afford to pay the loans back this mess wouldn't have happened.
Plus the guy at Fannie Mae Franklin Raines that screwed it up is a Democrat.
Chris Dodd at to plenty of monry from the banking and insurance industry and blocked regulation is a Democrat.
And this is the fault of the Republicans and or independents? I don't know what you are smoking, but you need to stop.
Corporate greed or a wealth driven society not poor people is the root of this mess.Basically,the republican's pet.
Poor people aren't the cause, but were involved. Common sense should tell you that you can't buy a $400,000 house on a $40,000 income.
You miss the whole point of what is being said. Private accounts may be dead, but they are still a bargaining chip if the Democrats want Republican support to share the blame when the whole system implodes-and I work for SSA>
Post a Comment