PDA

View Full Version : Greenspan urges caution on Social Security


irishgrl
02-16-2005, 03:12 PM
Slightly different take on Greenspans position (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=509&e=4&u=/ap/20050216/ap_on_bi_ge/greenspan)
Greenspan Urges Caution on Social Security

By JEANNINE AVERSA, AP Economics Writer

WASHINGTON - Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan (news - web sites) on Wednesday urged a go-slow approach on personal Social Security accounts, saying that while he embraces the idea central to President Bush's proposed overhaul, he is concerned about stability in financial markets.

"If you are going to move to private accounts, which I approve of, you have to do it in a cautious, gradual way," Greenspan said in response to intense questioning from both Republicans and Democrats in an appearance before the Senate Banking Committee.

"I think it's a good thing to do over the longer run," he said because something must be done to fix the system.


Bush's proposal would allow workers under age 55 to divert a chunk of their Social Security taxes into voluntary, private investment accounts.


Greenspan repeated his call to Congress to take action to shore up the massive entitlement programs of Social Security and Medicare. Those programs face huge financial strains with the looming retirement of 78 million baby boomers in 2008.


Bush, meanwhile, said he has not ruled out raising taxes on those who earn more than $90,000 a year to help bolster Social Security's finances. Under the current system, payroll taxes are paid only on the first $90,000 in wages.


"The one thing I'm not open-minded about is raising the payroll tax rate. And all the other issues go on the table," Bush told a roundtable of regional newspapers, according to an account Wednesday in the New Haven (Conn.) Register.


The Fed chief's remarks on Social Security came as he delivered the Fed's twice a year economic outlook to Congress.


On the economic front, Greenspan told the panel that the economic expansion rolled into the new year at a respectable pace and that inflation — while not an immediate threat — is something policy-makers must continue to guard against.


Greenspan struck a fairly positive tone about the economy, which had been mired in a midyear lull last year and has since improved.


"All told, the economy seems to have entered 2005 expanding at a reasonably good pace, with inflation and inflation expectations well-anchored," Greenspan said in prepared testimony to the committee.


On Social Security, Greenspan didn't prescribe any fixes. In previous appearances before Congress the Fed chief has said benefit cuts and possibly tax increases would be need to close the massive funding gap faced by Social Security.


"Benefits promised to a burgeoning retirement-age population under mandatory entitlement programs, most notably Social Security and Medicare, threaten to strain the resources of the working-age population in the years ahead," Greenspan said.


"Real progress on these issues will unavoidably entail many difficult choices. But the demographics are inexorable and call for action," he added.


How inflation fares in the coming months will shape whether Fed policy-makers — now on a gradual path of raising short-term interest — will need to speed up or slow down that campaign, Greenspan indicated.


One factor to keep an eye on is whether companies — amid slowing productivity growth — boost workers' salaries and then pass along those higher costs onto customers, the Fed chief said. The inflation outlook also will be shaped by the direction of oil prices and the value of the dollar, which has been falling over the last few years.


Federal Reserve policy-makers embarked on a rate-raising campaign in June and have pushed up short-term interest rates six times, each in modest, quarter-point moves. The last rate increase on Feb. 2 left a key rate at 2.50 percent. Another rate boost is expected at the Fed's next meeting on March 22.





Economists viewed Greenspan's remarks on the economy as buttressing their view the Fed for now will stick to its gradual approach to raising rates. "It's still steady as she goes. We will continue to get measured rate hikes," said Richard Yamarone, economist at Argus Research Corp.

Before the Fed started to push up rates in June, its key rate, the funds rate, was at a 46-year low of 1 percent. The funds rate is the interest banks charge each other on overnight loans and is the Fed's main tool to influence economic activity.

That extraordinarily low rate was used to shore up the economy, which struggled to recover from the recession of 2001 and the Sept. 11 attacks. With the economic expansion more deeply rooted, the Fed needs to move the funds rate to a more normal level so all the cheap money does not lay the groundwork for inflation.

Despite the Fed's increases to short-term rates, long-term rates such as mortgage rates, have actually moved lower in recent months in the United States and some other countries, Greenspan said.

Private economists have been puzzled by the decline in long-term interest rates and Greenspan admitted that he was stumped as well.

But the Fed chief cautioned that investors should be careful in taking the continued existence of low long-term rates for granted.

Fed policy-makers in an updated economic forecast said economic growth this year should clock in at a range of 3.75 percent to 4 percent, as measured from the fourth quarter of last year. That's about the same as the 3.7 percent growth seen in 2004.

On the inflation front, a gauge of prices that excludes food and energy costs is projected to increase around 1.5 percent to 1.75 percent this year — close to the 1.6 percent increase registered in 2004.

The nation's jobless rate should dip to around 5.25 percent this year, compared with 5.4 percent for all of 2004.

strandinthewind
02-16-2005, 03:58 PM
Not that we cannot have two at once, but I already started a thread on this http://www.ledge.fleetwoodmac.net/showthread.php?t=18170 :wavey:

irishgrl
02-17-2005, 12:31 PM
Not that we cannot have two at once, but I already started a thread on this http://www.ledge.fleetwoodmac.net/showthread.php?t=18170 :wavey:

my point was that the two articles had different takes on the same info....

strandinthewind
02-17-2005, 01:17 PM
my point was that the two articles had different takes on the same info....

and mine was the juxtaposition would have had better effect in one thread :D

irishgrl
02-17-2005, 01:54 PM
and mine was the juxtaposition would have had better effect in one thread :D
No one would read mine if I posted it in YOUR thread! and dammit! it needed reading, if by no one else, YOU would do in a pinch :]

strandinthewind
02-18-2005, 12:45 AM
(commentary and emphasis supplied)

Bush sees uphill fight

The President acknowledged lack of support for his Social Security plan, but vows to keep fighting.

February 17, 2005: 3:30 PM EST

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President Bush acknowledged Thursday that after nearly a month of lobbying he had failed to sway Congress on his plan to overhaul Social Security but he vowed to keep up the effort.

"I fully understand this, that this idea is going nowhere if the Congress does not believe there is a problem," said Bush, who bases his call for remaking the 70-year-old Social Security program on his contention it will go broke in its current form. [I think everyone realizes it is a problem you idiot - but private accounts will not in any way address that problem :mad: ]

The president told a news conference that he would be doing a lot of travel in coming weeks to try to make his case.

Democrats and some Republicans believe the financial problems are not as dire as Bush contends and can be fixed by some moderate changes. [HELLO - like eradicating the $90,000 taxable salary cap - I mean how SIMPLE is that :mad: ]

At the news conference, Bush also responded to Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan's concerns about the transition costs for his Social Security proposal by saying he would work with Congress to figure out a solution.

But he gave no specifics on how he would pay for the centerpiece of his Social Security plan [SURPRISE] :rolleyes: -- allowing workers to put up to four percentage points of their payroll taxes into individual accounts that could be invested in stocks and bonds.

"We look forward to working with Congress to come up with ways to make sure that the personal accounts, if Congress so chooses -- and I hope they do -- can be financed," Bush said. [by my daddy's business partners :mad:]

The president has said he would prefer to discuss with Congress ways to overhaul the retirement program rather than to "prescribe the solution." But Democrats view that approach as a maneuver aimed at getting them to step forward first with politically sensitive ideas.

Who will pay?

Trillions of dollars in costs could arise in future decades as payroll taxes are diverted into the accounts, forcing the government to come up with extra money to pay the benefits of current retirees.

This is a concern to several lawmakers, including a number of Republicans, with deficits already at record levels.

Bush's comments came a day after Greenspan endorsed the concept of the individual stock and bond accounts but expressed concern about the transition costs.

The Fed chief said there was a "huge hole" in the Social Security system and "we have no choice but to find a way to fill it."

Bush acknowledged that private accounts alone will not solve Social Security's long-run financial problems. [THEN WHY ALLEGE A CRISIS AND PROVIDE A "SOLUTION" THAT DOES NOT EVEN ADDRESS THAT PROBLEM YOU MORON :mad:]

In a newspaper interview Tuesday, Bush left the door open to raising the $90,000 cap on income that is subject to the payroll tax, which would boost the contributions paid by high-income earners. [READ MY LIPS :rolleyes: That any true conservative voted for this jackass is just astounding ]
He drew a distinction between lifting the cap and raising the 12.4 percent payroll tax rate -- something he vowed to oppose.

But House Speaker Dennis Hastert was skeptical about raising the payroll cap.

"My view of raising the payroll tax is it's raising a tax, something I would not opt to do myself," Hastert said. "My personal feeling is that it's an increase in taxes." [THEN HOW THE HELL ELSE ARE YOU GOING TO PUT ADDITIONAL MONEY IN THE FUND WHICH IS WHAT IS REQUIRED TO FIX IT - MUCH LESS PAY OFF THE 3 TRILLION IN "START UP" COSTS FOR THE PRIVATE ACCOUNTS WHICH DO NOT ADDRESS THE PROBLEM AT HAND?]


Find this article at:
http://money.cnn.com/2005/02/17/news/economy/bush_socialsecurity.reut/index.htm?cnn=yes

I am just once again astounding at the idiocy of these jackasses