by American Public Media .
Member since:
August 31, 2005

Marketplace: Social Security ripe for compromise

November 30, 2006 02:51 PM EST
views: 20 | rating: 10/10 (1 vote) | comments: 11

Broadcast on Thursday, November 30, 2006

Listen to this story

Can the new Democratic Congress and Republican White House work together? Maybe. And Marketplace economics correspondent Chris Farrell believes Social Security reform could be the place to start.

Marketplace website

link to this page
Bookmark this post:
Facebook
Twitter
Delicious
Buzz
More

Comments: 11

Ron (in complete sheeple overload) W. Nov 30, 2006, 2:58pm EST
I'd rather not have it discussed until the dems have the presidency, because there will have to be trade offs, and the republicans will want to reduce benefits. Several trains of thought are already firm on approaches, but there is much that can be done without reducing the core program. Better to wait. We have the time.
greg smith Nov 30, 2006, 3:10pm EST
Unfortunately, probably not. Politically, Social Security is too much of a "hot potato".
Dale Coparanis Nov 30, 2006, 3:24pm EST
Not sure how much time we really have, Ron. The time-value of money says that the longer you wait the more costly is the solution.

That being said, nothing is going to happen until 2009. This Congress doesn't have the power to put anything through that would constitute a solution. With the "bastardized" filabuster rule, unless one party can get a consistent 60 votes in favor of anything, we won't see much change from the status quo.

One other thing, Ron. Some Republicans may want to reduce benefits, others want more flexiblity and freedom for the people who pay FICA. I really haven't heard anything comprehensive from the Dems.
Ron (in complete sheeple overload) W. Nov 30, 2006, 9:05pm EST
Raise the threshold, leave the basic program alone, if possible. Reduce the deficit, thereby reducing interest payed, freeing more money for all programs, etc. What exactly is bastardized about the filibuster rules?
Dale Coparanis Nov 30, 2006, 10:30pm EST
Ron - by raising the threshold you are reducing benefits. And as far as reducing the deficit - until you actually have a surplus that you can re-allocate to something else, all you're doing is using a reduced deficit as a reason to fund Social Security and thereby increase the deficit.
Dale Coparanis Nov 30, 2006, 10:55pm EST
It used to be that a filibuster had to have someone actually speaking for it to be active. The rules in the Senate allow unlimited debate. Now, you don't have to talk at all. All the opposition has to do is tell the Majority Leader that they have at least 40 votes to go against cloture - cutting off debate - and it's considered a fiilbuster. With the inability to cut off debate, the Majority Leader can't get an up or down vote on that particular bill.

I'm not sure when this changed, but it is within the very recent past. Back in the 60s Robert Byrd (D, WV) filibusted for I don't recall how many hours against the Civil Rights Act (I'm pretty sure it was this act) by reading name after name from the phone book.
Ron (in complete sheeple overload) W. Dec 1, 2006, 12:14pm EST
Well,
Doesn't seem like anything but semantics to me, with or without someone standing there, if you can't muster the vote to close debate the same would be true whether there was anyone talking or not.
Ron (in complete sheeple overload) W. Dec 1, 2006, 12:17pm EST
Explain to me how raising the threshold is lowering benefits. Keep in mind I'm talking of raising the threshold of how much income is fica taxed, not the age. We will get back to surpluses, under the dems, I think. If we're not making progress toward that in pay as you go, etc, then I'll help throw them out on their butts, too. The rest of what you say is just fun with figures.
Dale Coparanis Dec 3, 2006, 12:39am EST
Funny thing about the filibuster itself is something that came up more by accident than anything else. The constitution says nothing about filibusters.

This modern day filibuster makes a requirement of a super majority where one was never needed. In addition, it is done, now behind the scenes. Before, a filibuster was seen by everyone and either applauded or not based on the issues raised for having it. Actually, I would think with C-Span and all, that our vain senators would want to be on TV reading from phone books, etc. :) (am I doing that smily face right?)

On a more serious note, if we are going to have a filibuster, then we should have one the old fashioned way. It's more straightforward and honest. Of course that might be asking a wee bit too much from any politician.
Dale Coparanis Dec 3, 2006, 12:41am EST
On the SS threshold thing - I'm glad you clarrified that. I was looking at it from an age increase not from raising the ceiling on SS taxes paid.
Ron (in complete sheeple overload) W. Dec 3, 2006, 1:30am EST
Actually, it is quite old though. I think it has done good and bad, over the years, but it is a given both sides use as it favors them. It does keep the minority from being run over on issues they feel strongly about though.

Join the Conversation
Chime in! Become a Gather member to comment.
Already a member? Sign in
top
 
Gather | Friends | Groups | Share
About Gather | Engagement Marketing | Make New Friends | Gather Points | Advertise on Gather | Gather Press | Privacy | Terms of Service | Community Guidelines
Books | Celebs | Entertainment | Family | Food | Health | Moms | Money | News | Politics | Spirituality | Sports | Travel | Writing
Version 16836, "Oz"; Copyright © 2009 Gather Inc. All rights reserved.