tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17206839.post4671972302358613881..comments2023-09-09T09:26:22.175-04:00Comments on Andrew Samwick's Blog: Social Security in the President's BudgetAndrewhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13514024573333057559noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17206839.post-57099614642785759292006-02-08T17:35:00.000-05:002006-02-08T17:35:00.000-05:00It wasn't in the SOTU because it's the sam...It wasn't in the SOTU because it's the same as last year's plan, although I believe the numbers are new.<br><br>See, e.g., <br><br>Social Security Reform: President Bush’s Individual Account Proposal<br>(April 25, 2005)<br><br>http://www.opencrs.cdt.org/rpts/RL32879_20050425.pdfAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17206839.post-62865092957672269952006-02-08T18:17:00.000-05:002006-02-08T18:17:00.000-05:00Since Kevin Drum has already taken on that "e...Since Kevin Drum has already taken on that "empty promise" garbage, let me focus on the 1st sentence of the quote from the Administration. What is says simply put is that the government can spend LESS and yet have young workers receive MORE. Unless there is some enormous inefficiency out there that this plan is eliminating (which there is NOT as Barro, Becker, et al. note) then this sentence is the usual free lunch lie we here from this White House. Just say it - the Administration has been lying and continues to lie. My only question is WHY do they do so. What are they are trying to pull over the voters eyes? <br><br>Hey - I'm for reform but I suspect this Administration has something else in mind.PGLnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17206839.post-34766475575486884582006-02-08T19:16:00.000-05:002006-02-08T19:16:00.000-05:00It should have been mentioned in the SOTU.It should have been mentioned in the SOTU.Arun Khannahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00283104336139330439noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17206839.post-76012575134009698112006-02-10T15:23:00.000-05:002006-02-10T15:23:00.000-05:00it wasn't in the SOTU because nobody in their ...it wasn't in the SOTU because nobody in their right mind thinks Congress would touch this with a ten foot pole in an election year - when Republican incumbents are already vulnerable, and when this concept was already trotted out at length last year & roundly rejected. it's a fake-out, plain and simple.<br><br>question is, what is it in there to cover for? the administration is always very deliberate (although thoroughly misleading) about what assumptions it includes in it s budgets & what it leaves out. War in Iraq, AMT relief - out. Private accounts in SS - in. Why?<br><br>My theory is that the proposal is in there to give them an $82B placeholder in the last two years of the budget window, when the cost of making the tax cuts permanent really kicks in. The private accounts placeholder gives them something that they KNOW they can drop or reduce in their next budget or budget update(with little notice or carping because nobody's actually expecting it to happen). Result: when the fake spending cuts they've projected don't come to pass, they can drop or defer this item to free up some room in the forecast, so they can continue to maintain that the tax cuts are affordable in perpetuity.<br><br>I never used to think like this about the Federal budget. I guess deviousness is contagious.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17206839.post-44145899540344944862006-02-11T14:26:00.000-05:002006-02-11T14:26:00.000-05:00As Iraq is out, I think congress should use this o...As Iraq is out, I think congress should use this opportunity to zero budget it and start bringing the troops home.Lordnoreply@blogger.com