associalisticpress.com�... Calling The Associated Press out for the Socialists that they are!

americanfreepress.org� in association with the Liberty Project� presents

associalisticpress.com� 9 Mar 2005

HOME PAGE | The ap archives | Contact the ap | ap Retractions | tha malcontent

ap / associalisticpress.com� Vs. �

GAO Official: No Crisis in Social Security

By GLEN JOHNSON (Direct descendent of Karl Marx! - tha malcontent)
Associated Press Writer Mar 9, 10:25 AM EST

WASHINGTON (AP) � Social Security "does not face an immediate crisis," the head of the Government Accountability Office said Wednesday, but it does face a long-term financing problem "and it would be prudent to address it sooner rather than later."

(ap) - Is it, "GAO Official: No Crisis in Social Security", or is it "does not face an immediate crisis."?... The keyword is "immediate". Knowing what we know about "the People" and reading headlines, as opposed to reading entire stories, one could assume that the AP is deliberately creating a Perception about the "crisis" not existing, when in Fact, the GAO says it's not "immediate". If the AP was not so Obviously batting for the DemocRATS, they might have titled this story: "GAO: Long-term Financing Problem in Social Security". So not only did the AP attempt to tell "the People" that there is "no crisis", they also ignored the Fact that the GAO acknowledges that Social Security is facing "financing problems" in what amounts to be the only thing that Dan Rather (D) will focus on tonight, his final night, the headline! One more point, the insinuation in this AP headline is that Bush (43) is wrong when he claims that there is a crisis in Social Security, when in Fact Bush (43) and the GAO agree, there is a crisis looming in the near future, and instead of Reacting to it, as the DemocRATS want to down the road some time, we should confront it now. This is yet another classic example of the bias that is inherent in the Associated Press, the mother of all Information in the "Free Press"! Thanks once again for the material, AP! Sometimes you make it too easy! - tha malcontent)

David M. Walker, who heads the nonpartisan Office of Comptroller General, also criticized President Bush for undertaking an aggressive two-month tour to try to sell his plan for allowing younger workers to divert a portion of their Social Security payroll taxes into private investment accounts. Walker suggested that Bush and members of Congress focus on improving financing for the program, which would not be significantly affected by establishment of personal accounts.

(David M. Walker may be part of a "nonpartisan" Office, but is he himself "nonpartisan", and is he speaking for the Office, or speaking personally?... I wonder why the AP would not Specify this little Factoid? Could it be the same reason that caused them to lead with one of the President's detractors? - tha malcontent)

The testimony launched formal debate, before the House Ways and Means Committee, on Capitol Hill over Bush's plan to overhaul the federal retirement plan that began as part of President Franklin D. Roosevelt's post-Depression era "New Deal."

("Federal Retirement Plan"?... Since when did FDR propose Socialistic Insecurity as a "Federal Retirement Plan"? Let's ask the Modern Source for Social Security... http://www.socialsecurity.gov/qa.htm "Q: Should I count on Social Security for all my retirement income? A: No. Social Security was never meant to be the sole source of income in retirement. It is often said that a comfortable retirement is based on a "three-legged stool" of Social Security, pensions and savings. American workers should be saving for their retirement on a personal basis and through employer-sponsored or other retirement plans." Things that make you go, hmmmm. I know which of the 3 legs is the shortest... Do you? - tha malcontent)

"I would have done it differently, I would have done it differently," Walker said, under aggressive questioning by Rep. Charles B. Rangel of New York, the top Democrat on the panel. In his opening statement, Rangel declared, "Private accounts will not be on the table if you are looking for bipartisanship."

("Private accounts will not be on the table if you are looking for bipartisanship.", Charley Rangel illustrating the Comprise required for Bipartisanship... As only a Black Segregationist who proposed reinstating the Military Draft can! - tha malcontent)

The panel's chairman, Rep. Bill Thomas, R-Calif., said in his opening remarks, "Clearly, the current program, because the American population has changed, is not sustainable based on the old method of financing."

Noting that Congress has not changed the program since 1983, the chairman also chided Democrats for opposing any potential cut in retiree benefits.

(No changes to this program in over 20 years?... Social Security should be looked at and adjusted every 5 years in my opinion. There are far too many variables, from population growth to Recessions and Expansions. This should be elementary. - tha malcontent)

"In 1983, under the Democrat leadership, the solution included cutting benefits," Thomas said, adding that tax increases were also part of the 1980s remedy.

(DemocRATS cut benefits... SHOCKING! Since Reagan signed it, he gets the blame, of course! - tha malcontent)

With polls showing that people are nervous about future financial shortfalls in the program, House Republicans intended to devote their first hearing to that rather than Bush's less popular idea of private accounts. Nonetheless, the partisan views surfaced in the hearing's opening minutes.

(Bush (43)'s idea is only as "popular" as Dan Rather (D) tells us it is!... And he's simply doing what the rest of the "Free Press" is doing... Parroting the AP! - tha malcontent)

The trustees for the Social Security and Medicare trust funds are expected to release their 2005 report on the long-term financial outlook of government programs later this month. Two trustees who appeared at the hearing, Thomas R. Saving of Texas and John L. Palmer of New York, said there have been no major changes in the program's demographics or financial outlook during the past year, but they joined Walker in urging immediate action on long-term program financing.

"We believe that action on it should not be deferred any longer than necessary for due deliberation and decision," the two said in a joint statement released before their formal testimony. "Also, acting sooner rather than later will allow time to spread the burden of any changes across different age groups."

(According to the DemocRATS, there is nothing wrong for decades and we need not move with haste regarding "fixing" something that is not broke... Right? - tha malcontent)

In his remarks, Walker said: "Social Security doesn't face an immediate crisis," but he added, "Time is working against us. The sooner you act, the less dramatic the changes that have to be made."

("Time is Working Against Social Security", could have been another Honest headline... That would take Honesty out of the AP though! - tha malcontent)

New Republican polling data shows "there is a rejection of the term `crisis' as an accurate description of the state of the Social Security system, and this rejection increases in intensity as the respondents get older," according to a copy of a memo obtained by The Associated Press.

(Maybe the AP should have paid attention to REPUBLICan polling that show Bush (43) winning the Election 51% to 48% back in the fall! - tha malcontent)

The analysis was based on 14 focus groups held last month in scattered locations paid for by the National Republican Congressional Committee, the campaign arm of the House GOP.

Older voters view a candidate's views on Social Security to be "as important, or in some cases, more important than issues like the war, health care and education," the pollsters wrote.

When focus groups are given information about Bush's plan, "the written description of the personal retirement account proposal creates majority support among all age groups (including 51 percent favor among seniors)," the memo says.

(When given "information", a majority "supports" it?... Isn't amazing what information can do! - tha malcontent)

It also says public knowledge of the plan is sketchy and about half the "facts" that people recited about the plan were incorrect.

(Incorrect like, "Bush (43)'s plan will wreck our Retirements"? - tha malcontent)

Social Security provides retirement, survivors and disability income for 47.7 million Americans, and Medicare provides health care to 42 million seniors and disabled people.

(I know this from Family experience... "Disability" = Drink, take pills, OD... On the taxpayer dime, while a Senior in the same family who worked the War Factories in WWII and retired in a meat shop in 1985 received about a 1/3 of what the Abuser of Substance half her age received... Anyone curious as to why I have a deep-seeded Hatred for Socialism? - tha malcontent)

Last year, the trustees estimated that in 2018, the Social Security trust fund would begin taking in less payroll tax revenue than it needs to pay retiree benefits. The trustees estimate that by 2042, the trust fund will be empty and program will have only annual payroll taxes to pay benefits.

(2018 is 13 years from now... 13 years ago, Bill Clinton "won" the Election with 43% of the "Popular Vote"... Does that put 13 years into Context for you? DemocRATS would prefer to React to a very Serious Crisis with Social Security down the road, and answer it with more Socialism! - tha malcontent)

Bush has promised that any changes will not affect Americans 55 or older, but he advocates allowing younger workers to divert up to two-thirds of their Social Security taxes into personal accounts in exchange for a reduction in their guaranteed benefit. Supporters argue investment returns will exceed the guaranteed benefit they agree to forgo.

(I would go a step further... Pay those who are owed now, and then end it. I will donate my portion to stopping it now. - tha malcontent)

The proposal has been condemned by the AARP, a seniors lobby, and many Democrats, who argue the system can be tweaked to extend its solvency and that investment accounts are more risky than a guaranteed government benefit.

("The system can be tweaked", DemocRATS say?... You mean like extending the benefits age to further disenfranchise Blacks who already rarely meet the age to obtain benefits, thanks to 5 decades of Oppression and Dependence forced upon them by DemocRATS in a continued attempt to have fresh crops of Voters to Farm every 2 years?... - tha malcontent)

___

On the Net:

Social Security Administration: http://www.ssa.gov/

(That depends on what the meaning of "may" is... All commentary included on this website is the opinion of tha malcontent and is based in the Truth. No Liberals, Marxists, Stalinists, Socialists, Communists or DemocRATS were harmed in the making of this website, I promise! - tha malcontent)

Don't do what you're polled to do!�

This web site is designed, maintained and edited by tha malcontent...

"what have you done for Liberty today?"

associalisticpress.com� is protected speech pursuant to the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States and is faithfully enforced by tha malcontent via the Second Amendment to that same Constitution. Any reproduction or redistribution of this article will be seen as an awakening of a Patriot in this Great Republic by tha malcontent, and subsequently applauded!

associalisticpress.com/tha malcontent�

an americanfreepress� organization 1994-2005

tha malcontent... The Original Gangster of the Pajamahidin

The ap� & The afp�

- the Liberty Project� -

'Si vis pacem Para Bellum'

HOME PAGE | The ap archives | Contact the ap | ap Retractions | tha malcontent