ASHINGTON - Dozens of Democratic lawmakers told President Clinton yesterday they strongly oppose creating individual Social Security retirement accounts that would allow workers to invest in the stock market.
A letter signed by more than 40 Democratic members of the House and Representative Bernard Sanders, an independent from Vermont who helped write the letter, said privatization of the nation's retirement system ''poses some unacceptably dangerous risks.''
The Social Security system faces increasing financial strains when the baby-boom generation, born between 1946 and 1964, begins to retire. Enough taxes are currently being collected to pay Social Security benefits and to build a trust fund. But the trust fund is expected to be exhausted by 2032.
The letter said that with some ''minor adjustments'' the Social Security system would be able to cope financially with the retirement of the baby-boom generation starting in about 2010.
''Social Security should not be considered as an investment policy,'' the lawmakers wrote. ''It should, to as great a degree as possible, be considered as an insurance policy - protecting us from poverty in old age, from the economic risks associated with disability, or from the loss of a spouse or a parent.''
The letter also said that the transition costs of setting up private accounts would be staggering, and argued that between $1 trillion and $7 trillion would be needed to achieve the switch.
Clinton has made Social Security reform a priority and has said he favors allowing some investments in stocks. The question is whether to do that through individual Social Security accounts or by allowing the government to invest Social Security tax money in the stocks.
Currently, Social Security trust fund money can only be invested in federal government debt. Such investments are low risk, but historically yield lower rates of return than investments in the stock market.
Business groups have said they favor private accounts and would strongly oppose any move to allow the government to invest Social Security money in corporate stocks.
This story ran on page A09 of the Boston Globe on 01/16/99. © Copyright 1999 Globe Newspaper Company.
FAST TRACK, who's demise should not be greatly exagerated-p
Please see http://lists.essential.org for help
We are often asked, "Will the transnational corporate 'free trade' lobby and their running dog political lackeys in Washington DC actually endeavor to pass 'Fast Track' to expand the flawed and failed NAFTA model during the opening weeks of the 106th Congress?"
Now this is an excellent question and, really, the answer depends on who you talk to. Here at Public Citizen's Global Trade Watch, as many of you know, we tend to take a pessimistic perspective -- often an even alarmist attitude -- about the legislative calendar and the resources of the Bizness Roundtable (and their astroturf booster squads like ALOT! and GO TRADE!). That is to say, we err (when we err) on the side of caution; and all things being equal, we figure they'll go for it, after trying to lure the forces of Fair Trade into a false sence of coalitional confidence.
So we naturally urge all the Fair Trade activists in this country -- whether from labor unions or environmental organizations or family farm groups or progressive congregations or protectionist militias -- to contact their congressional delegations NOW, especially the new members. In subsequent postings to this modest list-serve, we will offer sample letters to congress-members and newspaper editors. In the meantime, everybody should get on talk radio; also:
1) Our prize-wining web-site is www.tradewatch.org
2) JoC (1/12/99) suggests that the GOP House leadership will be pushing for
Fast Track.
3) Inside US Trade (1/15/99) suggests that the White House may not have the
stomach for it.
4) An anonymous friend alerts us to the opening gambit of the Senate
Finance Committee (a source of much pro-corporate trade policy mischief in
the waning days of the 105th Congress).
*********************
>Journal of Commerce
>Tuesday, January 12, 1999
>
>Rep. Archer sees Congress passing fast-track legislation by April
>SANTIAGO - Rep. Bill Archer, chairman of House of Representative's Ways
>and Means Committee, said he sees Congress approving 'fast- track'
>negotiating authority legislation before April.
>Mr. Archer, who was heading a congressional delegation in Chile, said
>Chile would be the first country with which the legislation would be
>used to negotiate a free-trade agreement.
>The legislator's comments run counter to most U.S. trade analysts, who
>have said the Clinton impeachment scandal over lying about his sexual
>relationship with former White House intern Monica Lewinsky will likely
>knock fast track off Congress' attention this year.
>'We are hopeful we'll be able to pass fast-track no later than April of
>this year,' Mr. Archer, a Republican, told reporters after meeting with
>Chilean Finance Minister Eduardo Aninat.
>He added he was optimistic Congress would grant the Clinton
>administration broad 'fast-track' authority to negotiate with other
>countries besides Chile.
>Mr. Archer said he thought Congress had a better chance of getting
>enough votes to approve the negotiating authority. 'We are prepared to
>put every effort into getting the votes necessary to pass (fast-track),'
>he said.
>He believes that Chile would be incorporated as the fourth member of the
>North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), rather than negotiate a
>bilateral agreement with the US. Chile has already signed comprehensive
>bilateral free-trade pacts with Canada and Mexico, the other 2 NAFTA
>members.
>Chile's incorporation into NAFTA is tied to the creation of a Free Trade
>Area of the Americas (FTAA), an initiative agreed upon by the heads of
>state of the Americas at last year's America's Summit
************************************************************* WHITE HOUSE STRUGGLING TO SOLIDIFY FAST-TRACK POSITION THIS MONTH _______________________________________________ Date: January 15, 1999 - Inside US Trade -
The Clinton Administration is struggling with how to handle fast-track negotiating authority this year, and has stepped up efforts to seek industry advice on a possible fast-track initiative, according to industry sources. These sources said two events that will likely force the Administration to indicate its position seem to be driving these recent efforts.
One is President Clinton's upcoming State of the Union address, which may mention a trade agenda in some way. Sources said that at press time, it was still unclear how much the speech would mention trade, or whether fast track would specifically be mentioned.
The other event is a scheduled three-day Senate Finance Committee hearing on trade, sources said. U.S. Trade Representative Charlene Barshefsky, Commerce Secretary William Daley and Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin are scheduled to testify on the first day of this hearing.
"The first question to Barshefsky will probably be on fast track," one industry source, which he said is why officials have been working to develop a position on the issue in recent weeks.
But industry sources this week said it seems increasingly likely that the Administration at most may be shooting for a scaled-back version of fast track, such as one that grants the U.S. authority to negotiate in the upcoming World Trade Organization negotiations. And the Administration seems plagued by doubts about whether it is worth pursuing even this option, particularly since the only upcoming major trade event is the WTO ministerial, where new negotiations can be launched successfully without fast track, they said.
In addition, officials are aware that any fast-track initiative faces an uphill battle in Congress and would have to come at considerable political cost.
Signs that the Administration may be cool to a fast track that specifically covers negotiations to conclude the Free Trade Agreement of the Americas surfaced at a Jan. 13 meeting hosted by Commerce Secretary William Daley, sources said. The meeting was held to give Daley an opportunity to hear input from industry representatives on their trade priorities such as fast track, they said.
One topic of discussion in the meeting was whether the FTAA is moving slowly precisely because the U.S. does not have fast track, and whether this absence has led other FTAA members to be wary of negotiating until the U.S. has negotiating authority.
But Daley said it is unclear how much of that problem is "just an excuse," according to one informed source. Other sources said the Administration seems less interested in a fast-track bill that focuses regional agreements in Latin America.
In the Jan. 13 meeting, Daley also raised other questions about the need to have fast track this year to begin the WTO talks, one source said. This left some with the impression that the Administration might not be prepared to push hard for fast track in the coming months, since Daley did not give any real indication of what the Administration wants to accomplish on trade this year.
"The impression I got is that they're not going to break their backs to do this," one industry source said. "[Daley] left the impression that there is no trade agenda for 1999."
But another source said the meeting revealed only that the Administration is still wrestling with how to handle issues such as fast track, and that this indecision should not be seen as the absence of any will to push trade matters this year.
The meeting was billed as a chance to discuss the 1999 trade agenda, sources said. Deputy Commerce Secretary Robert Mallet also attended the meeting, they said.
Some business groups are mentioning fast track in their trade agenda for next year, but few seem convinced that it can be achieved in the current political climate.
For example, the Emergency Committee for American Trade told Clinton in a Dec. 30 letter that he should enunciate a positive trade agenda. Such an agenda should set out the objectives for the 1999 WTO ministerial the U.S. is seeking. In addition, it should call on trading partners to enter into a standstill commitment not to take restrictive trade measures in advance of the ministerial, ECAT said.
The letter also cited the need to bring China into the international trading system, and to renew fast-track authority if a consensus can be achieved. "Any such legislation should reflect a consensus among the Administration, the Congress, and the business community on realistic and appropriate objectives on labor and environment," the letter said.
Similarly, the Business Roundtable is preparing its trade agenda paper that will mention fast track but not highlight it. The group will also focus on the objectives the U.S. should pursue in the WTO ministerial, one source said.
This recognition that any fast-track initiative will face an uphill battle and will most likely require a new approach than the one that failed in 1997 and 1998 has influenced the effort that business groups are willing to put into defining a detailed position (Inside U.S. Trade, Dec. 18, p. 7).
Sources said Daley also talked about the so-called Cox Committee report, which contains 38 as-of-yet still-classified recommendations on how to prevent U.S. technology products from being improperly transferred to China. But Daley revealed no details about these recommendations, and said only that China will continue to pose a challenge to the U.S. this year, one source said.
Informed sources said this week that the report has the potential to have long-lasting implications for the U.S. relationship with China. The report details a systematic campaign by China to illegally obtain U.S. technology, sources said.
Therefore, the resulting debate will likely be one on whether China poses a strategic threat to the U.S. in the 21st century more than on the details of an export regime the U.S. should have in place to prevent diversion of technology to China, these sources said.
The issue will likely come to a head in the upcoming debate on the renewal of most-favored nation status, along with the increased human rights abuses that China has engaged in over the past few months.
Inside US Trade - Volume 17, No. 2 - ª Inside Washington Publishers **********************************************************
>In a meeting yesterday with the minority staff of the Senate Finance
>Committee, my colleagues and I learned that Senator Roth is planning a
>hearing entitled "Globalization and the World Trade Organization"
>tentatively scheduled for January 26, 27 and 28th (Senate impeachment
>trial permitting - even if the trial continues, they will hold the
>hearing in the morning while the trial goes on in the afternoon). While
>the title is broad, the hearing is meant to cover two topics primarily:
>Fast Track and Steel.
>
>The first day is Administration witnesses. The second day will cover
>Steel and then the Agriculture and Services sectors to be addressed at
>the WTO Millennium Round at the end of November and early December 1999.
>The third day is for Labor and Environmental concerns regarding Fast
>Track. All the witnesses are being selected by Roth with the "ok" of
>Moynihan's staff. But as everyone knows, Moynihan also supports Fast
>Track. Moynihan's staff said that Roth intends for the hearing to "set
>the stage for the discussion and release of a new Fast Track proposal."
>
>A notice will go on the Senate Finance Committee web page soon, but they
>said that the Committee is notoriously slow at posting hearing notices.
>
>If you want to speak at or at very least submit papers for the hearing -
>contact the Majority staff of the Senate Finance Committee ASAP.
>
STAY TUNED
mfd