It may not have been an extremely detailed new plan suggestions, but as far as counter-offers go it was clearly a first step:
"They said they would work with Mr. Bush on Social Security only if he would "publicly and unambiguously announce" that he rejected his proposal for private investment accounts financed by payroll tax revenues."
http://nytimes.com/2005/03/04/politics/04social.html
I also came upon a good list of 8 reasons why the SS Reform efforts have come very close to stalling:
"1. There was no great public hunger for the plan. People are generally satisfied with the retirement system, even though they're uneasy about its long-term health.
2. Bush offered few specifics during the campaign, so he can't claim a mandate.
3. The plan is complicated, making it impossible to explain in a couple of sound bites. See Hillarycare, 1994.
4. The administration had to admit that creating private accounts wouldn't do a thing to bolster the near-term solvency of Social Security. In other words, it wouldn't fix the "crisis" the president was trumpeting, at least for several decades.
5. In fact, the plan would worsen the $400-billion-plus federal deficit by requiring a trillion or two in "transition costs." That's a tough sell at a time when red ink is gushing, Medicare costs are exploding and Medicaid is on the chopping block.
6. The Democrats decided to just say no. Taking a page from Gingrich, Newt, 1994, they have stuck together, refused to compromise and generally let Republicans twist slowly in the wind. (It was interesting to see Tom DeLay complaining about how Dems won't come to the table when the House Repubs generally ignore them in pushing things through.)
7. Republicans went home to their districts and got an earful about the unpopularity of the Bush plan.
8. The polls showed the plan to be a loser, and everyone in Washington obsessively reads polls."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/nation/columns/kurtzhoward/
I agree with all 8 and also want to reiterate that only one of the 8 has to do with Democrats. While I hope the "take a page from Newt" thing won't start yet another "Well you did it first" thing, the Dem strategy has clearly been to demand specifics from President Bush, and allow lobbying groups to fight it out amongst themselves.
The 8 reasons aren't listed as why the reform will fail, but why it has stalled, and that the table is set now for actual negotiations if all sides are truly interested. Dems say private accounts are a non-starter. President Bush needs a new strategy or to come up with a much more convincing rationale for them. And Republicans who oppose the President's plan need to come up with something on their own too.
If something gets passed it's a no lose situation for the White House, they started all the debate, so they'll get to claim a good % of credit.
"They said they would work with Mr. Bush on Social Security only if he would "publicly and unambiguously announce" that he rejected his proposal for private investment accounts financed by payroll tax revenues."
http://nytimes.com/2005/03/04/politics/04social.html
I also came upon a good list of 8 reasons why the SS Reform efforts have come very close to stalling:
"1. There was no great public hunger for the plan. People are generally satisfied with the retirement system, even though they're uneasy about its long-term health.
2. Bush offered few specifics during the campaign, so he can't claim a mandate.
3. The plan is complicated, making it impossible to explain in a couple of sound bites. See Hillarycare, 1994.
4. The administration had to admit that creating private accounts wouldn't do a thing to bolster the near-term solvency of Social Security. In other words, it wouldn't fix the "crisis" the president was trumpeting, at least for several decades.
5. In fact, the plan would worsen the $400-billion-plus federal deficit by requiring a trillion or two in "transition costs." That's a tough sell at a time when red ink is gushing, Medicare costs are exploding and Medicaid is on the chopping block.
6. The Democrats decided to just say no. Taking a page from Gingrich, Newt, 1994, they have stuck together, refused to compromise and generally let Republicans twist slowly in the wind. (It was interesting to see Tom DeLay complaining about how Dems won't come to the table when the House Repubs generally ignore them in pushing things through.)
7. Republicans went home to their districts and got an earful about the unpopularity of the Bush plan.
8. The polls showed the plan to be a loser, and everyone in Washington obsessively reads polls."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/nation/columns/kurtzhoward/
I agree with all 8 and also want to reiterate that only one of the 8 has to do with Democrats. While I hope the "take a page from Newt" thing won't start yet another "Well you did it first" thing, the Dem strategy has clearly been to demand specifics from President Bush, and allow lobbying groups to fight it out amongst themselves.
The 8 reasons aren't listed as why the reform will fail, but why it has stalled, and that the table is set now for actual negotiations if all sides are truly interested. Dems say private accounts are a non-starter. President Bush needs a new strategy or to come up with a much more convincing rationale for them. And Republicans who oppose the President's plan need to come up with something on their own too.
If something gets passed it's a no lose situation for the White House, they started all the debate, so they'll get to claim a good % of credit.