Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Bush Holds News Conference [Proposes to turn social security into a poverty program]
The New York Times ^ | April 28, 2005 | DAVID STOUT

Posted on 04/28/2005 6:38:41 PM PDT by Brilliant

WASHINGTON, April 28 - President Bush said tonight that Social Security should be adjusted so that benefits for people with lower incomes would grow faster than for those who were more affluent.

Mr. Bush said the change would go a long way toward solving the retirement system's problems and would keep a solemn pledge to people who have worked hard for a lifetime but have not amassed great wealth: "You will not retire into poverty."

Speaking at a White House news conference on the eve of the symbolic 100-day mark of his second term, Mr. Bush again pushed for voluntary personal retirement accounts within Social Security for younger workers. And he said again that he was open to good ideas from either party, provided the suggestions, if carried out, would not "raise the payroll tax rate or harm the economy."

While ruling out raising the 6.2 percent payroll tax rate for Social Security, perhaps significantly he did not rule out raising the ceiling, now $90,000, on which earnings are taxed for Social Security.

"As we fix Social Security, some things won't change," Mr. Bush said, recognizing that for decades any talk of changing the system has been considered the political equivalent of Russian roulette. "Seniors and people with disabilities will get their checks. All Americans born before 1950 will receive the full benefits."

The president also called on the Senate to pass his energy program, the outlines of which have already been endorsed by the House, so that the United States can be energy-independent. Among his ideas, which he said involve obtaining more energy through "innovative and environmentally sensitive ways," is drilling in a portion of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.

"My administration is doing everything we can to make gasoline more affordable," Mr. Bush said, alluding to a recent trend that polls show is annoying the American people and perhaps endangering him politically. "There will be no price-gouging at gas pumps in America."

The president also touched on several other hot-button issues. He declined to offer a timetable for the withdrawal of American troops from Iraq, but said they would begin to come home "as soon as possible," and he insisted that the United States and its allies were making progress there.

Mr. Bush said, too, that he stood by his embattled nominee for United Nations ambassador, John R. Bolton, and that Mr. Bolton's by now well known abrasiveness might stand him and the United States in good stead.

"John Bolton is a blunt guy," he said during the hourlong session with reporters. "John Bolton can get the job done at the United Nations."

Mr. Bush and his top aides have repeatedly said that the United Nations needs to adapt to the 21st century instead of being little more than an international debating society.

But Mr. Bush dwelled heavily on his Social Security proposals, emphasizing, in response to a question, that any Congressional action that addressed the system's solvency - but did not allow for private accounts - would be unacceptable to him.

He said these accounts would allow only for safe, conservative investments, like Treasury bonds backed by the full faith and credit of the United States government, which has never defaulted. (The president's Democratic critics chided him recently for referring to the $1.7 trillion in Treasury securities that make up the Social Security trust fund, amassed by the current accumulating surplus, as little more than a pile of i.o.u.'s. These securities, too, are backed by the government's full faith and credit.)

Mr. Bush, in the fourth prime-time news conference of his presidency, said his two-month campaign to promote his ideas for Social Security had convinced him that the American people "understand that Social Security is heading for serious financial trouble." "Congresses have made promises they cannot keep for a younger generation," Mr. Bush said. By 2041, he asserted, "Social Security will be bankrupt."

Mr. Bush did not go into detail, in his opening remarks, on the inexorable trends that actuaries envision as baby-boomers move into retirement. Actuaries have forecast that the retirement system, which now takes in more than it pays out, will start to run a deficit in 2017.

From 2017 until 2041, the system could still pay full benefits by drawing on its store of Treasury securities in which the present incoming surplus is now invested. And starting in 2041 - the point at which Mr. Bush said bankruptcy would occur - the system would be able to pay benefits at only about 72 percent, unless changes are made in the meantime.

"Social Security is too important for politics as usual," Mr. Bush said, after months in which the White House and its Republican allies have argued bitterly with Democrats, who generally oppose the concept of individual retirement accounts within Social Security because they fear the change will undermine the system without fixing its admitted long-range problems.

As for opinion polls showing that many people are wary of his ideas for the retirement program, Mr. Bush said, as he has many times and in connection with many issues, that he does not worry about them. "You know," he said, "if a president tries to govern based upon polls, you're kind of like a dog chasing your tail."


TOPICS: Government; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: bush; bush43; energy; gwb; meanstesting; newsconference; presidentbush; socialsecurity
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 161-178 next last
To: Brilliant

What is your solution ?


41 posted on 04/28/2005 7:14:11 PM PDT by Raycpa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Raycpa

I was in favor of the private accounts. My taxes go into a private account for me. What's wrong with that?


42 posted on 04/28/2005 7:15:19 PM PDT by Brilliant
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Brilliant
What would the RICH like better. A tremendous TAX INCREASE or REDUCED benefits?

The answer is clear, with an added benefit of pitting the Dims, who have NO IDEAS anyway, against the POOR if they come out against this proposal.

This move by the POTUS is in fact .............. Brilliant!

43 posted on 04/28/2005 7:15:58 PM PDT by PISANO (We will not tire......We will not falter.......We will NOT FAIL!!! .........GW Bush [Oct 2001])
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Brilliant

I agree, this would turn Social Security into just another wealth transfer program.

I am very disappointed that he is going this way.

He better make those tax cuts permanent, or he's failed.


44 posted on 04/28/2005 7:15:59 PM PDT by tomahawk (http://tomahawkblog.blogspot.com/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: patriciaruth; Brilliant

I don't like the proposal, but it does show how frustrated he is becoming with the lack of action on social security reform.

Unfortunately, it looks like Bush may be just like any other second-termer and be unable to get much of anything significant accomplished.

I hope I am wrong, but it doesn't look good yet.


45 posted on 04/28/2005 7:16:54 PM PDT by rwfromkansas (http://www.xanga.com/home.aspx?user=rwfromkansas)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Spiff

how? how do you "end it"? stop sending checks to current retirees? tell people who are just a few years away from retirement - sorry, you lose everything you've put in.

there is no way to "end it". you put the private accounts out there and give young people, the new entrants to the ponzi scheme, a way to transition out.

look, I am skeptical about this too - but let's see what happens, if it starts going the wrong way, we'll know.


46 posted on 04/28/2005 7:17:20 PM PDT by oceanview
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: PISANO

I'm sure that under his plan we'll get both. And if you're NOT rich, you will get reduced benefits if you once WERE rich, according to someone's standards.


47 posted on 04/28/2005 7:17:56 PM PDT by Brilliant
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: Brilliant

the answer depends, how old are you?


48 posted on 04/28/2005 7:18:14 PM PDT by oceanview
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: Spiff

You wouldn't like any suggestion the President made no matter what it was.


49 posted on 04/28/2005 7:20:17 PM PDT by COEXERJ145 (Just Blame President Bush For Everything, It Is Easier Than Using Your Brain)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: oceanview

I'm 46, but my age should make no difference. Social security is going to be broke before I retire. The only way to protect my benefits is to put them into a private account where Washington can't touch them.


50 posted on 04/28/2005 7:20:54 PM PDT by Brilliant
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: Brilliant
"This is a stupid idea. He really is desperate to get something thru. And it shows what desperate condition social security is in if they are even considering turning it into a poverty program in order to save it. We've already got poverty programs. We don't need more of them."

I agree

"If you work your entire life, earn lots of money, and pay thousands into the social security trust fund, but then you suffer setbacks and end up in poverty in your retirement, you apparently would be entitled to reduced benefits. You, poverty-stricken in your senior years, spent thousands to support others in their retirement, but now the system has breached its promise to you.


Again I agree

I understand that the system is broken and it needs to be fixed and private accounts could help but the system needs to be fixed first of all. I think the system must be worst off than anyone is willing to admit.
51 posted on 04/28/2005 7:21:36 PM PDT by WHBates
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Brilliant

Jackass.

Way too stupid.


52 posted on 04/28/2005 7:23:02 PM PDT by lodwick (Integrity has no need of rules. Albert Camus)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Brilliant
Indexing?
Raising the income ceiling? (which means a big tax hike for higher incomes that John Kerry would just LOVE)
Means testing?

I have done a comlete 180 on partial privatization--from a strong supporter--to one now completely opposed to any changes!

The President should cut his losses and drop the whole idea! It doesn't have a chance of passage if strong supporters of the President like me--have now thrown in the towel!

53 posted on 04/28/2005 7:25:17 PM PDT by stockstrader
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PISANO

My bet is the rich (making over 45k a year) will get both reduced benefits and higher taxes.


54 posted on 04/28/2005 7:26:00 PM PDT by Nachoman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: skip_intro
Are these truly private accounts, where I can invest the money as I please, or will I be required to invest it in a government run account?

I don't think that there is yet a final form set in stone, but my guess would be that they will be similar to 403b plans (which are fairly similar to 401k plans.) I googled for some web info about 403b plans and these two seemed reasonably informative: 403bwise and a similar page at the Motley Fool.

55 posted on 04/28/2005 7:27:06 PM PDT by snowsislander
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Brilliant
I heard a panel of talking heads discussing a novel way to save Social Security.

It has been suggested we have a weekly NATIONAL lottery, where we would have a chance to win money...lots of money. Sort of like the States who now participate in the powerball. No one will be forced to "buy a ticket"..:~)

With all the States participating, they claim the money would be more than adequate to save Social Security.

Maybe it IS this simple?

sw

56 posted on 04/28/2005 7:28:16 PM PDT by spectre (Spectre's wife)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: snowsislander

Thanks.


57 posted on 04/28/2005 7:28:35 PM PDT by skip_intro
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: patriciaruth
I went into the Sociable Securitee office and found it full of people who had paid zero into the so called fund, who were trying to get disability benefits.

Social Security has also been turned into a welfare system.

Thanks,of course, to the rats who had control for forty years.

58 posted on 04/28/2005 7:29:25 PM PDT by oldtimer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Chesner

"They got it all from their rich Mommies and Daddies."

...and by just moving money around, and by usury--which was once illegal in America.

Entrepreneurs who work hard to EARN money get hit with massive income tax. In a perfect world, I'd say no unearned wealth. Well, in a perfect world, I'd like to see the denisons of Wall Street go out and split wood or bale hay at least an hour a day, too. However, it's not a perfect world.


59 posted on 04/28/2005 7:34:01 PM PDT by RepublicMan4U
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Brilliant

I watched most of it, and that's how I understood what he was saying. I'm glad you posted this, because I thought I was hearing things.

I'll see what everyone else is saying about this.


60 posted on 04/28/2005 7:36:11 PM PDT by TheSpottedOwl (Free Mexico!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 161-178 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson