>The Return Of The Lock Box

>You have got to be fucking kidding me. I remember Al Gore being roundly mocked for his “lock box” mantra — to the point where he parodied himself on Saturday Night Live. And now we have Sharon Angle bringing it back:

“The real Social Security solutions are to stop Harry Reid from raiding the Social Security trust fund,” Angle said in the ad.

“I’d like to save Social Security by locking the lock box, putting the money back into the trust fund so the government can no longer raid our retirement,” she says, echoing former Vice President Al Gore’s “lock box” comments that earned him ridicule in 2000.

Let me guess: in 10 years you guys will be in favor of carbon offsets to battle the crisis that is global climate change, right?



Filed under Al Gore, Social Security

7 responses to “>The Return Of The Lock Box

  1. >Sharon Angle makes Sarah Palin look smart.Maybe that is their strategery.WASF,JzB

  2. >I just read a lot about SS since I noticed that it was signed into law on this day in 1935…US Social Security Act Becomes Law (1935)During the Great Depression, millions of people dissatisfied with the government response to the poor economy supported a plan to demand a $200 monthly pension for everyone over the age of 60. President Franklin D. Roosevelt responded by establishing a committee on economic security, which recommended legislative action to the US Congress. The resulting act established a national old-age pension system financed by a payroll tax on employers and employees. Who is eligible for Social Security? More …As you will note in that linked article; there is still some controversy concerning the trust fund have any money at all. The anti-Social Security nuts would have us believe all kinds of things. I am trying to remember what fund is being used to finance their "pay as you go" plan these days… Money for social programs seems to be easy pray to finance projects and such.. Then claim that there is not enough money to take care of the needs of our elderly and unemployed or down and out.Anyway the point of your post is a good one. (Sharon Angle hasn't crawled away in shame, yet?) I mean, how can she still face the public let alone run for a Senate seat?

  3. >She's not a terribly acute Angle.Now, if the Democrats were smart, they'd agree with her on the lockbox and point out it was THEIR IDEA."If" – LOL!

  4. >Everything old is new again. Cap and trade was originally a product of conservative economists within the Nixon Administration.

  5. Jim

    >"Social Security faces a $5.3 trillion shortfall over the next 75 years and it's projected to run out of money by 2037."On top of this, SS is running a deficit this year and will be calling in some of the "trust fund" that isn't there. The pyramid is starting to collapse under its own weight.

  6. >Jim, Social Security is NOT projected to run out of money in 2037. What they project to happen in 2037 is that the income flowing into the program will only be sufficient to pay 75% of scheduled benefits. This is not a crisis but an easily solvable problem. One way to easily solve the problem is to raise the cap on contributions from the first $100,000 in income to the first $250,000 in income. Alternately, you can do away with the cap completely, and have everyone pay in, not just the lower and middle classes. Either way the problem is solved completely. Easy peasy.Another way to solve the problem is to encourage employers through some moderately protectionist tariffs to not base their manufacturing offshore. Those sweatshop laborers do not pay into Social Security. Neither, for that matter, do foreign "guest workers." The more Americans we employ in full time jobs, the more people are paying into the system.And thirdly, we can keep Republican presidents like George W. Bush from raiding the Social Security Trust Fund to balance their "fuzzy math" budgets and financing their tax cuts to the wealthy. Bush began raiding the trust fund almost as soon as he was sworn into office, and he raided it again to finance his tax cuts. The OMB predicted Bush would raid the entire projected Social Security surplus of $2.4 trillion from 2005 through 2014. Of course, when your entire plan is to do away with the New Deal and safety nets like Social Security and Medicare, you don't give a damn how solvent it is. It's always curious to me that we hear this "crisis" rhetoric from Republicans. They want to gamble the whole lot in the Wall Street casino to make the banker gangsters happy.But sorry, your math is way wrong. Here's what the Nobel Prize winner has to say about it:"But now I understand why the usual suspects are reviving the old switcheroo on how you think about Social Security, in which surpluses don’t count but deficits do. It’s because when you adopt either consistent view — either Social Security as a standalone budget, or as part of an integrated federal budget — it just doesn’t look like a big deal. And that’s not an acceptable answer for people who really, really want a crisis."

  7. Jim

    >"And thirdly, we can keep Republican presidents like George W. Bush from raiding the Social Security Trust Fund to balance their "fuzzy math" budgets"I am sorry – which Presidents have not used the SS surplus in their budgets?So yeah you could raise taxes to make SS solvent past the current dates of bankruptcy, but that somewhat goes against the design of SS. The system was set up to provide a defined benifit based on your contributions. Currently there is a maximum benifit and therefore there is a maximum contribution. If you are going to remove the cap on contributions, do you also propose to remove the cap on benifits? Or is this just another wealth transfer program in your mind?