FactCheck Debunks Dems Social Security Rant

There is no Social Security Trust Fund.

There is no money there. None at all.

 

Not only the Dems

Scaring Seniors on Social Security

Republicans misleadingly accuse Democratic House candidates of aiming to shrink benefit checks.
October 18, 2006

Summary
Several ads being aired by Republican House candidates try to frighten both old and young away from supporting their Democratic opponents, who, the Republicans claim, will"cut benefits for seniors" and "raise Social Security taxes" on workers.

What the Democrats actually support, however, is the AARP's approach to addressing Social Security's enormous deficit by making "modest adjustments in future benefits" and getting "additional contributions from higher-income workers." Nobody is proposing cuts in current benefit levels.


John Rother, AARP's Director of Legislation and Public Policy, calls the ads "a distortion" of the candidates' positions as well as that of his group and says the spots misuse a survey AARP asked candidates to complete.

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica]Some of the ads also repeat the misleading claim that Democratic candidates would "give our Social Security to illegals," which we've addressed before. We know of nobody proposing to pay Social Security to illegal immigrants, not until and unless they legalize their status or become US citizens.

Wow, what a surprise! Politicians' ads are often misleading!
[/FONT]

 

So 'cuts' are bad, but 'adjustments' are good. (Btw, next year qualifies as 'the future.') 'Raise...taxes' is bad, but 'additional contributions' is good. (Btw, does that mean there is a choice whether or not to make the 'contribution,' which by definition is a voluntary act? Didn't think so.) Of course, there aren't nearly enough 'higher income' workers to generate the kind of money needed - unless you define 'higher income' down far enough. I think last time the Democrats used that line it turned out to be $35,000 of household income. I'm sure it would end up in that general vicinity again in this case.
The point is that if you make the terms vague enough and avoid certain words, you can make typical liberal tax-and-spend-and-the-heck-with-actually-fixing-anything policy sound like something else.
As far as I'm concerned, the claims about the policy fall well within the vague parameters of the policy. It's the Democrat/AARP policy that is deliberately misleading. No surprise there.

 

Where is your source for this article/column, please?

 

For more on Social Security "trust funds," see http://www.socialsecurity.gov/OACT/ProgData/fundFAQ.html#n1

 

One Senate Dem candidate who has proposed raising SS taxes on "high income families" (without spelling out who those are) is Rep. Harold Ford of Tenn. These families would also forfeit any future right to receive SS benefits in exchange for modest tax breaks on investments (that are largely already available). Ford also wants to raise retirement age to 70.

This appeared in the Knoxville News-Sentinel, and you have to be a subscriber to access it. One piece that had portions is http://www.knoxnews.com/kns/election/article/0,1406,KNS_630_5063742,00.html

 

Hiya Tom,

I think the article Daisy posted is from the same site, FactCheck, that Leesw got his from.

http://www.factcheck.org/article452.html

 

Correct, thanks.

 

Thanks Jamie. I must've missed that in the text. My apologies.

 

This last week is going to be a doozy!!
[/FONT]