This is a little disingenuous. Since the trust fund surplus is lent to the rest of the Gov, in effect it is being used, no less than when your bank 'uses' your demand deposit to buy government bonds and pocket the difference in rates.
> So, what on earth do the Republicans mean?
What's going on is they want to immunize themselves against charges of raiding the Trust Fund, so they are trying to one-up Clinton by proposing a cosmetically- enhanced version of Clinton's policy on debt paydown.
> And "not necessarily right away." That sounds like St.
> Augustine wanting to be chaste, but not just yet.
Their problem is there is no "on-budget" surplus (e.g., non-social Security) until 2004, and the election is next year, godammnit! They need some dough now to justify their reelection.
> Here's the next paragraph:
>
> Needing money to pay for tax cuts and additional spending,
> House and Senate leaders discussed allowing Congress to
> dip into Social Security funds for the next several years
> but then walling off the retirement system's money from
> the rest of the Federal budget.
>
> But, but, but the money *is* presently walled off from the rest
> of the Federal budget. So, this sounds like a proposal to
> ignore the wall and raid the funds! And this is from the
> Republican leadership. It quotes Armey:
see above
> [The proposal would be] a remarkable accomplishment,
> certainly far superior [to past efforts to keep Congress
> from mingling Social Security's money with general
> revenue.]
>
> Remarkable is right. As I read it, it is a bald proposal
> to take Social Security's money for other purposes, while
> calling it "saving" Social Security's money.
Armey is capable of lying through his teeth. Zero intellectual integrity or even respect for the intelligence of those he talks to. Don't assume a rational argument of some kind is always buried somewhere.
> There isn't a single critical comment by Stevenson, as if
> he is rehashing the press release as gospel truth.
>
> Please, somebody else read the article and tell me if I'm
> wrong.
>
> --
> Man kann nicht zwei Tänze mit ein Popo tanzen.
same to you fella
mbs