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 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 161-178 next last
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.

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.

1 posted on 04/28/2005 6:38:41 PM PDT by Brilliant
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Brilliant

And just how good are those treasury securities?


2 posted on 04/28/2005 6:40:45 PM PDT by crz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Brilliant

The Prez did a good job of getting the issues and the proposals before the country.

It's hard to batter your message through the lefties' broadcast news monopoly.

And, now Social Security raises are higher than needed. It's a good idea to stop giving that much increase to the rich Social Security recipients, and leave it only for the poorer recipients.


3 posted on 04/28/2005 6:44:38 PM PDT by patriciaruth (They are all Mike Spanns)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #4 Removed by Moderator

To: Brilliant
I think it may just be verbiage. Calling it a poverty program sets in the public's mind that anyone opposing it would be anti-poor people.

...or I could be full of crap.

5 posted on 04/28/2005 6:46:29 PM PDT by infidel29 ("It is only the warlike power of a civilized people that can give peace to the world."- T. Roosevelt)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: infidel29

He's going to index the benefits according to your income. That's a poverty program.


6 posted on 04/28/2005 6:47:39 PM PDT by Brilliant
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Brilliant
"if a president tries to govern based upon polls, you're kind of like a dog chasing your tail."

"If a paper tries to report it's own ideology when it should report news, it's kind of like a chicken plucking it's own feathers"

"A common mistake that people make when trying to design something completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete fools. - A. Dent

7 posted on 04/28/2005 6:47:58 PM PDT by xcamel (Deep Red, stuck in a "bleu" state.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #8 Removed by Moderator

To: vishnu6

The only good thing about Bush's proposal is that it's DOA. I was previously in favor of social security reform. Now I'm against it. And I'm not the only one.


9 posted on 04/28/2005 6:49:09 PM PDT by Brilliant
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: infidel29

SS was never meant to be a retirement program - it was meant to be the ultimate safety net, so that the elderly, particularly those who had lost their savings during the Depression, would be protected. The problem is that the expectations of SS have gone way up.


10 posted on 04/28/2005 6:49:24 PM PDT by livius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: patriciaruth

Soak the rich! Soak the rich! After all, none of them worked for their money. They got it all from their rich Mommies and Daddies.


11 posted on 04/28/2005 6:49:32 PM PDT by Chesner
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: livius

I just want the ability to "opt-out" of the pyramid scheme. Let me invest the money that the Feds would have squandered.


12 posted on 04/28/2005 6:51:12 PM PDT by Army Air Corps (Four fried chickens and a coke)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Brilliant
"He's going to index the benefits according to your income. That's a poverty program."

That's classic socialism.

13 posted on 04/28/2005 6:52:05 PM PDT by Sam Cree (Democrats are herd animals)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Army Air Corps

Exactly.


14 posted on 04/28/2005 6:52:14 PM PDT by livius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: livius

True, it was meant to supplement retirement, not finance it. Even FDR wanted personal accounts to be part of socialist security.


15 posted on 04/28/2005 6:52:26 PM PDT by infidel29 ("It is only the warlike power of a civilized people that can give peace to the world."- T. Roosevelt)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: vishnu6
BS. We are all equal rights in America. The rich and the poor should get exactly what they are owed based on the earnings of their contributions and nothing more.

That's 20th century thinking. We're in a brave new world where wealth redistribution becomes the cornerstone of a "conservative" Republican president's second term.

GWB is going to surpass even LBJ in the entitlements arena.

16 posted on 04/28/2005 6:53:47 PM PDT by skip_intro
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Chesner

good grief !

I'd expect something like this from the dems... but wth is our side doing promoting this class warfare stuff and trying to stick it to the rich.


17 posted on 04/28/2005 6:54:09 PM PDT by Nyboe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Brilliant

If reform means that I am going to get even less, I'm against it too. He sure does know how to antagonize his base.


18 posted on 04/28/2005 6:54:53 PM PDT by sangoo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Brilliant
The private accounts are a fine idea, but this idea of "progressive indexing" is not -- it just makes it even more Socialist Security than what it was before.

I want private accounts, among other reasons, as a stepping-stone to eventual complete privatization of the system, but introducing this means-testing moves away from an eventual privatization of the system.

19 posted on 04/28/2005 6:55:06 PM PDT by snowsislander
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: infidel29

I wish Bush had stressed the wealth-building part of his proposal more. The problem with SS contributions is that they don't build wealth. Even if you live long enough to get a return on it, you have not created an asset that you can leave to your dependents and thereby create wealth.


20 posted on 04/28/2005 6:58:06 PM PDT by livius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 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