Meanwhile, I found a
link to the LA Times titled "Bush Plan Aims to Get Americans Off the Government Dole", but the online article has been retitled
Bush Plan Aids Poor, Squeezes the Rest. Indeed, as Peter G. Gosselin writes,
"What you're going to see is an effort to scale back middle-class entitlements that many people do not need and to become more focused on the antipoverty aspects of these programs," said Michael Tanner, an expert on Social Security at the Cato Institute, a Washington think tank that advocates small government.
Meanwhile, at the New York Times (which in one place at least did
not show all his remarks on religion), they really believe that everyone deserves social security.
President's Big Social Security Gamble By RICHARD W. STEVENSON cites a couple:
"It's like throwing a drowning man a lead weight instead of a life preserver," Mark Mellman, a Democratic pollster, said of Mr. Bush's decision to introduce benefit cuts into the equation. "He's got a plan that neither the public nor his own party can support. Only good can come from Democrats' defending the right of the middle class to continue getting their benefits in full."...
"This would represent a major change in the philosophy of Social Security," said Jason Furman, an economist at New York University and a senior fellow at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, a liberal research group. "If you combine progressive indexing with private accounts, you could threaten to unravel the entire Social Security system."
See also
Speech Gives Republicans Lift in Social Security Fight By ROBIN TONER and ELISABETH BUMILLER:
Democrats asserted it would amount to deep cuts in benefits for most retirees and transform Social Security from a broad middle-class entitlement to a program aimed at the poor. AARP, the powerful lobby for older Americans, also dismissed the latest Bush proposal, with John C. Rother, policy director for the group, describing it as "an unnecessary and unfair benefit cut for the middle class."
No comments:
Post a Comment