Rs Not Signing on to Phase-Out of Soc Sec

The AP has a nice article up on R doubts about G-dubs Soc Security phase out even in the afterglow of the SotU. They note that in stark contrast to Bush's other big proposals, there is no D support in the Senate.

And if lack of any D support were bad enough, many Rs continue to consider the proposal a 'dead horse,'....to borrow a phrase.

House opponents include the Chair of the House Way and Means subcommittee on Soc Security,

"The AARP and the Democrats think if you divert some money from the trust fund," the existing program will be undermined, McCrery said. "That is true on its face. It does decrease the level of the trust fund. Politically, that's going to be a very strong tool that (opponents) can use to defeat a plan."

McCrery and [former subcommittee chair] Shaw said in separate interviews that, like Bush, they want to create personal accounts. But they said they favor paying for them with general revenue, which probably would mean borrowing the money.

And what is up with these separate accounts funded from general revenue? Rs talk about these all the time. Are they actually saying that we should take general revenue and give it to every working American to increase their Soc Security monthly benefit? Isn't that welfare? With Soc Security we pay a dedicated tax to fund an old age safety net. But who is going to pay for these private accounts? Rs are advocating an trillion dollar giveaway. What could possible be in it for the Rs? Perhaps a giveaway to the RNC donors who will handle the accounts for a fee?

the Roth IRA already exists as a private retirement account for young workers, and it's a great program. In fact its so good, Rs want to open it up for the wealthy so they don't have to pay any taxes. Of course, the worker has to fund that account, and I guess Rs feel badly about that and want to give them money.