 |
 |
August 14th, 2006Watch S4 on CSPAN-2 this morning!
August 14th 06:40:29 AM
S4’s Deputy Director, Jo Jensen, will be on CSPAN-2 this morning.
At 10am she will be part of a live debate discussing the future of Social Security held at the National Press Club. This event is hosted by the 60 Plus Association and is moderated by their President, Jim Martin. Dana Goldstein, an Associate Editor from the Center for American Progress- Campus Progress will join Jo in discussing the future of Social Security from a young person’s perspective.
The debate will be aired at 10 am on CSPAN-2. See the following link:
http://inside.c-spanarchives.org:8080/cspan/schedule.csp
We hope everyone can tune in, but if not we will have the full video up on the S4 website later!
Posted by Jo Jensen| Comments (0)
August 11th, 2006Washington Post: "President Remains Eager to Cut Entitlement Spending"
August 11th 12:13:11 PM
An article in the Washington Post today talks about the fresh approach being taken to entitlement spending...targeted for next year after the mid-term elections. Yet more confirmation that we're going to pick this issue back up, and we need to be ready!
Some excerpts:
The Bush administration has begun sounding out lawmakers and other key figures about mounting a new bipartisan effort to rein in the costs of Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security after the midterm elections, according to officials in the administration and on Capitol Hill. . .
The new Treasury secretary, former Goldman Sachs chief Henry M. Paulson Jr., has made it clear that a major reason he took the job is to tackle the rising cost of government health and Social Security spending, which he described last week as "the biggest economic issue facing our country."
. . .some administration officials and lawmakers are hopeful that the partisan wars may recede after the November balloting, that the public is eager for practical solutions -- and that there could be a small window to try again before the 2008 presidential campaign reaches full bloom. "It's a limited opportunity, but it's one that [Bush] is interested in," said Sen. Judd Gregg (R-N.H.), chairman of the Budget Committee. "I have spoken to him innumerable times about this, and he's engaged. . . . He wants to move in this area."
Posted by Jeremy Tunnell| Comments (0)
August 10th, 2006Liebman, MacGuineas and Samwick Social Security Plan
August 10th 04:17:07 PM
The Liebman, MacGuineas and Samwick Social Security Plan (shortened to the LMS plan) is the only plan that we're summing up that was created by Social Security wonks rather than politicians. Interestingly, its also the only plan that calls for mandatory PRAs for workers under 55. Those older than 55 would continue using the (unaltered) current system. The retirement age would be gradually raised by 11 years, which would lessen the impact of baby boomer retirement. There would also be a gradual decrease in benefits to a lower level, which would lead to solvency over a 75 year period.
These PRAs would be funded by 3% of taxable earnings. It would also increase the amount that could be taxed, raising it so that 90% of earnings would be taxed. A broad range of index funds would be offered which would achieve two goals: the investor would be able to choose whether to invest more heavily in stocks, treasury bonds, or corporate bonds, but would also be in a diversified, broadly indexed fund that would allow for financial security.
The mandatory participation in PA's is likely to be politically difficult. That being said, it would be easier, not to mention cheaper, to have a single plan, rather than the complicated tangle of bureaucracy that running the current system and Personal Accounts would necessitate.
Posted by Chris Rogers| Comments (0) Hagel Social Security Plan
August 10th 04:09:07 PM
Like most of the Social Security reform plans, the Hagel Social Security Plan, also known as the “Saving Social Security Act of 2005”, would offer voluntary personal accounts. These accounts would only be available to workers who were 45 and younger; all older workers would continue using the current system. The retirement age would be raised to 68 if you are 45 or younger. If you are 44 or younger, benefits would be modified to represent increased life expectancy. The later you retire, the larger your benefits would be.
If you chose to participate, 4% of your taxable income would be placed into a personal retirement account, about half of which would probably be invested in equities, and the other half in corporate and treasury bonds. The actual investment options would be modeled off the Thrift Saving Plan, which is currently available to government employees. Estimated administration costs are 0.3% of PRA assets.
Posted by Chris Rogers| Comments (0)
August 09th, 2006Bravo Mr. Paulson
August 09th 09:13:16 AM
Just four weeks into his term as Treasury Secretary, Paulson is already defining one of his main goals as reforming the Social Security system. In this interview with CNBC, Paulson notes that one of the major long-term challenges for the economy is Social Security. Fixing it is clearly a priority for the new Treasury Secretary-he notes "The longer we wait to fix this problem, the more limited will be the options available to us, the greater the cost and the more severe the economic impact on our nation."
With the the media attention he gets as a new appointee, Paulson is in an ideal position to put this issue back on the legislative table. If he can keep the bipartisan support that he enjoyed through his confirmation process, we could see meaningful reform before the available options dwindle even further.
Posted by Chris Rogers| Comments (0)
August 08th, 2006Policy Brief: The President's Social Security Proposal
August 08th 12:48:26 PM
The title “President's Commission to Strengthen Social Security of 2002 (Plan B)” doesn't exactly roll off the tongue, but the plan itself is quite straightforward. It is based on voluntary Personal Accounts. Workers could put a maximum of $1000 annually into these accounts, which would then be invested in a range of bonds and balanced funds. At retirement, the newly retired individual would be paid an annuity out of their Personal Account, and receive Social Security benefits. The Personal Account money would be constant, and the additional Social Security benefits would be determined by how much an individual had put into Personal Accounts while they were working.
The increase in Social Security's benefits would also be linked to price increases rather than wage increases, which would help the program stay in the black while also keeping pace with inflation. It would also increase the benefits for widow(er)s,
Since the Personal Retirement Accounts are voluntary, about 33% of the workforce is expected to opt out of the new system. With 67% of the workforce participating in it, Social Security would become self sustaining in 2059.
This plan has come under heavy criticism for threatening the entire system of Social Security for a fictitious crisis. At the same time, proponents of the plan have stated that the plan would lead to increased gains for individuals, and criticized detractors for not giving an alternative proposal. Supporters of the President's proposal also point to decrease in the risk that politicians would alter the benefits in the program.
Posted by Chris Rogers| Comments (0) Flashback: Senator Isakson on Social Security
August 08th 11:54:51 AM
I just received a link to a speech by Georgia Senator Isakson last year on Social Security. I hadn't seen it before, but after reading it i'm pretty sure that it's one of the best speeches on the subject so far.
It's really worth reading the whole thing, but i'll give you a couple of snippets...
I’ve come to the Atlanta Press Club to talk to influential Georgians about a subject that can be made extremely boring because it deals with numbers, and it’s called Social Security.
But I want to do it, because I have a sincere interest in seeing to it that this debate goes beyond those who just pick it apart before it starts, and really goes on to looking at the future not only for the betterment of our families, but for our children and our grandchildren – and understanding that change is not a bad thing. It’s like my wife always said, “Okay, change is fine; you change first.” That’s the way the world is – no one wants to be the first one to change. The human reaction to change is a natural fear, but most everything in America that has happened for the betterment of healthcare, government, education and American enterprise has been born in change.
Change is not in and of itself, a bad thing.
Now here are the ground rules: for those of you that want research, you go to socialsecurity.gov, savingsocialsecurity.gov, you go to “compound interest” on Google, and pull of the first website on Annuities, Compound Interest, and the rule of 70 seconds. Or, you go to the United States Government website on the United States Senate and pull up all my financial disclosure statements. It’s from those resources that I’m going to talk to you today. So you can go check everything I’m telling you. I’m not going to use hypothetical examples to sell you a thing.
Now I went to Congress in 1999, and when I did, I took money that I had and I put it in an account and I said I’m not going to touch this – I’m on a fixed income, I’m no longer a salesman and I need to be prudent in what I do. I put that aside in 1999 in a managed account. Over the next six years, I didn’t add any money to it, nor did I take any money out of it – it was there to grow. It was managed by a company here in Atlanta, based on a very conservative approach that I took, based on the fact that I’d be 60 one day, which I am now. Between 1999 and shortly after 9/11, 2001, that account lost 38 percent of its value. Today that account is about where it was in 1996 before it went through a decline in the market. And you can test any other company or brokerage house and they’ll give you these windows where they did real good. But the fact of the matter is, most everybody went down somewhere between 30 and 40 percent and most everybody is back to where they were if they stayed the course and took advantage of the time-value of money.
Over the same six year period, I was investing in the Thrift Savings Plan. And starting with zero in 1999, and putting aside $10,000 a year over six years, I have an account in managed funds that’s worth $91,000. Now you ask yourself, wait a minute – if this account you had went down 38 percent, yet the one you’re investing to, you put $60,000 in six years – well how can that be? Well how it can be is the following: if you’re self-directing on a monthly basis, you’re dollar cost averaging in the market. When I was in Thrift Savings Plan, I was buying in the down years as well as the good years. So I was profiting in the days when it was cheap, post 9/11. And over a broad period of time, that’s the way it works.
Read the whole thing!
Posted by Jeremy Tunnell| Comments (0)
August 01st, 2006Paulson weighs in on Social Security
August 01st 09:30:04 PM
Marketwatch reports that in a speech at Columbia University's business school, Hank Paulson, Treasury Secretary, talked about his plans for the next few years.
Entitlement reform was at the top of the list:
"I have always tried to live by the philosophy that when there is a big problem that needs fixing, you should run towards it, rather than away from it...
Apparently, he is under orders to work with Congress on a bi-partisan basis to come up with a solution to the Social Security issue.
At S4, we've heard that Paulson is worth his weight in gold (literally). Hopefully, he'll show what he is made of when he tackles one of the biggest issues of a generation.
Posted by Jeremy Tunnell| Comments (0)
July 27th, 2006S4 Attends President Bush Speech at N.A.M.
July 27th 03:13:40 PM
President Bush addressed the National Association of Manufacturers today, and S4 was invited to attend his speech!
President Bush focused his remarks on health care reform, but also touched on other aspects of his Presidential platform, including his desire to reform Social Security! Evoking some of the sentiments from his June 27th address to the Manhattan Institute, the President again emphasized the strong need to reform Social Security, lest it continue to bog up the economy:
"I understand what you understand, that one of the biggest drags on our economic growth is going to be Social Security and Medicare, unless we do something about it."
This is more clear evidence that the White House is taking the Social Security problem seriously. Hopefully, with continued White House support, soon Social Security will be reformed and become a boon to young Americans, rather than a mere Ponzi scheme for future retirees.
Posted by Zack Stiefler| Comments (0) Social Security Policy Briefs
July 27th 09:17:33 AM
Have you ever wondered exactly WHAT it was that people have been proposing to do to fix the Social Security system?
Well, we at S4 have taken some of the most prominent, important, and viable Social Security propositions from the past few years and summed each's 15 or so pages of technical jargon into a couple of clear paragraphs for each policy brief.
Over the next couple of weeks, S4 will be blogging about 7 of these Social Security memos, starting with that of the President's Commission to Strengthen Social Security from 2002.
Keep checking back to find out what everyone is proposing to fix Social Security!
Posted by Zack Stiefler| Comments (0) [Next 10 >>]
|
|
 |
 |
|