Sometimes I stand back and wonder, "What the fu....."

Social Security is not broken, it is not insolvent, and everyone gets an erection at a plan to "fix" it. Stunning. Absolutely stunning.

At one time I was going to payoff my student loans. Hell, I can use that money to setup a lovely lifestyle in any foreign country, most of them a shitload more democratic than the former united states of america. Why shouldn't I fuck you all over? You absolutely take to it so well from politicians. Maybe there is someplace without fake elections, fake news, and fake people.

I like this proposal. I have been for removing that cap for a long time. It will not hurt the wealthier people to pay for retirement of the people they used to become wealthy.

Of course it's a good plan--but that's not the issue. The Repubs will react by citing this as proof that their definition of the problem is accurate, and they will attempt to force a "compromise" that leans heavily in their direction. Reid et al. have predicted this response ("something to push against") which is why they have chosen not to enter into negotiations with the crooked, lying Repubs. There is no possibility of "good faith" with these people. I guess I'd be all for the Dem proposing a plan if they reinforced the fact that they "wish they could offer this plan to the people" but they won't be willing to allow the Repubs to wreck in committee. The Dems need to emphasize that the Repubs are the problem and that the Dems can't fix that problem unless the people vote for a solution...

Gotta go with Paul on this one. But maybe we've made the point that there is no crisis and it's time to come up with an enhancement of SS, and tie it to that actual god damned lock box Al "Should BE President" Gore talked about.

Nah, bushco needs more twisting in the wind on this and many other issues.

Because there is no crisis.

Democrats need a plan like this one and should not compromise AT ALL...NONE...ZIP...ZILCH...NADA. We have the numbers on our side.

Years ago during contract talks, we asked the company for an increase in our pension, but were rebuffed with the comment "Social Security will be more than enough to make the difference."

Looks now like we should have held out.

Since the Congress is now only representing the Topper$ of America while the rest of us are invited to die and decrease the surplus population, I suspect that Congressman Wexler's quest will be about as successful as Don Quixote's.

If I ever needed a single post to remind me that this blog isn't about being effective, it's about being angry, this is the post. Sure, it's nice to have a Dem stand up and get a spine and show some balls and be like Howard Dean was in 2004, but it's not going to help us get what we want.

Unless of course what you want is just to be angry.

I agree with Steve that the early response from congressional Dems is disheartening. By immediately trashing Wexler Dems have inadvertantly trashed themselves--by making the Dems seem closed to new ideas that don't involve bad ideas.

The Democratic party should be an entrepreneurial party--not necessarily pro-maverick, but not anti-maverick either.

And besides, Wexler's proposal is something people can like.

I agree with Paul and Duckman. Democrats should wait until the GOP plan is drowned before throwing a life ring. Nobody is paying attention right now - before the 2006 elections is the time to show our cards.

This Wexler plan, which seems to have merit, is a problem because it allows the GOP to exploit it as a sign of division within the Dems.....and from the screams emanating from Pelosi's office, apparently it is. But this is simply a manifestation of the Democrat party, a party not locked into a frightened, trance-like follow-the-leader or die organization like the GOP. The problem I see is lack of organization, which I had hoped Reid and Dean would have addressed by now. Wexler went off the reservation, and he should't have. At this point in the SS war, Rove will take any shot he can, and here is the opening he's hoped for.

Exactly T2. There is a time to show a unified front to the neo-cons, and this is it. Offering up a plan that says "we need to fix Social Security," when in fact it is not broken, plays directly into the republi-con agenda. We'll soon have muckdog trolling along soon with the "Why should the wealthy be taxed?" message (as soon as he gets it from his handlers), followed by, "But it's good to see Dems agree Social Security needs to be repaired!" Does anyone here really think this administration is going to have anyone above $90k pay taxes they aren't paying now? It's a ridiculous idea.

The real problem is that any "extra" money put into the trust fund right now (as this increase would be) is destined to be ripped off by the crooks in the Republican government. Social Security should not get a penny more until we throw them out and get someone in who will honor the debts created.

Is it inconceivable that Wexler wasn't off the reservation on this one? That this is a flanking maneuver orchestrated by Pelosi?

Legislation that is passed can look very different from what was originally proposed. Except for Mary's point, this has always sounded like the right way to go, however, all the GOP has to do is manipulate the legislation into what they want, pass it and then shout out that it was proposed by a Democrat in the first place. I thought that was why we were trying to act like a unified party, to show we could actually accomplish something other than handing the Republicans another victory.

But if this is not how the legislative process works, please let me know. Thanks

Agree with Paul, T2 and others. Good on substance. Bad on timing. The Republicans should not be allowed to divert from their unpopularity on this issue. At least not until privatization is off the table. This will allow them to do, and to call Dems "tax raisers" in the process. They want to get something to keep the ball rolling, which will end up with privatization in conference committee. The can't so so as long as the Democrats refuse to play ball. Wexler just gave the ball a kick. Fortunately, the leadership has distanced itself from the proposal.

Damned if we do and damned if we don't. A proposal like this and all the Reps say is "the only solution the Dems have come up with is to raise taxes." Don't present a proposal and the Rep say "well, Bush's plan is the only one out there, so we better go with it."

I agree with Roamer, the middle and working class in this country are what made it possible for the wealthy to get where they are. They may have the money to take a risk, and they do get rewardded for that, but they cannot succeed without people working for them. And in this day of slashing employee pension plans rather than reducing CEO pay, the middle and lower classes are going to need social security more than ever.

I don't think the timing of this is bad. I think the leaderships response is troublesome. If this plan is framed properly it could go a long way to helping the Dems keep Social Security alive. What has Bush proposed? Keeping payroll taxes where they are and phasing in big benefit level restrictions for future retirees based on lifetime average earnings. What's that mean? High wage earners will continue to pay at present levels but will benefit less from the program in the future. It turns into a "Poor program". What is Wexler proposing? Raise payroll taxes in a progressive way and keep benefit calculations the way they are. What does that mean. High wage earners will pay more right now but will still benefit in a meaningful way from the program in the future. What's the net effect of these two plans? Either high wage earners pay now and don't get representative benefits later or they pay now and get representative benefits later. The only objection to this idea could be an idological one that hinges on the desire of conservatives to kill the program by turning it into a welfare program so it can become unpopular and be killed later. The Dems need to work that angle.

This is just the normal process of funding and certainly nothing new. All it does is make the Repigs and Bushbag look foolish, as the should.

I'm with others who say, why is this even a priority, especially in light of all the other things we should be discussing.Democrats are just feeding into the Bush agenda by even coming up with a proposoal, distracting us all away from addressing all the real problems facing the majority of Americans.

Plus the timing is bad. Bush has been relatively quiet about this over the last few weeks. Why is Wexler making it newsworthy again.

The democrats had been winning the debate and the publics trust on the social security issue by just stating the facts about the current system compared to more pressing issues.
Wrong priority, wrong timing,...wrong, wrong, wrong. No wonder they always lose. They can't remain solid on any issue and feed right into Bush's hand every single time. ....sigh.

The real problem is that any "extra" money put into the trust fund right now (as this increase would be) is destined to be ripped off by the crooks in the Republican government. Social Security should not get a penny more until we throw them out and get someone in who will honor the debts created.

Absolutely 100% correct, Mary. It's a very good reason why the best course of action right now is to do nothing. Building up a Social Security surplus has proved to be a sucker's game which has enabled tax cuts for the wealthy.

Without getting into the merits of the idea or the wisdom of Wexler's timing, I would suggest that any time the cap issue is discussed, progressives should frame the option of eliminating the cap as:

Ending the Wealthy Wage Exemption

Sample talking points:

"The fair and simple way to strengthen Social Security is to end the Wealthy Wage Exemption. If we treated wealthy wages the same way we treated middle-class wages, we could secure the trust fund without cutting benefits."

Or:

"Today, middle-class wages get taxed for Social Security, but wealthy wages don't. That just not fair. We should get rid of the Wealthy Wage Exemption, and make sure everyone -- including CEOs and movie stars -- contribute their fair share. That would allow us to secure the trust fund without reducing benefits."

The term 'Wealthy Wage Exemption' was coined and initially pushed by the Oregon AFL-CIO, and has been picked up by labor nationally. Links to original labor sources can be found at:

http://www.dailykos.com/comments/2005/4/30/17119/7541/1#1

men QWQ ! Let's take it further, and cite the rare previledge that being wealthy in the USA really is. Then we should bill them for it. The status and SECURITY of the wealthy depends on a stable society.

Or, is it possible that there will be an upper class, untaxed, building dynastys with inherited tax-free monies? A class that dashes from secure haven to secure haven; living behind fences and gates? Private schools, ownership without jobs, if we let them live like that, they should PAY.

We should tax all income, calculate the balance sheet, then offer the same reduction (which I expect) to everyone. Don't you think everyone below $90K would see an advantage to this plan?

Or, better yet, after treating everyone fairly (all income taxed) we could choose to exempt the first $10K of every individual and dependent.

Perhaps, we could have no lower tax break, but allow everyone to have a secure future, even a divorced non-worker, an impaired person, a hermit or a bum. We define a civil and decent absolute bottom. We boost our society up a notch.

Or, we take that expected excess to start paying for all our old-age care.

We need to sell this as an improvement, and a fix for our future.