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."
Define rich.
This thread is full of bogus conservatives.
You hit the cast iron shop again yet?
I really tried to avoid it. LOL.
Yep.
I knew you would not be able to skip it;)
Kinda like the gun shop...
You made an excellent point and the change needs immediate implementation. There are some trolls on the site who would lament even if President Bush gave everyone in the USA one million dollars tax free. I presume it comes down to who could you trust in looking out for the welfare of SS eligible people? bill klintoon, shrillary klintoon, the democommies or a man of honor, integrity, leadership and compassion for all Americans(President Bush) I most avidly choose President Bush in reigning in this program for the betterment of all Americans. Private accounts can be left to the survivors of the deceased. Under the present system if a person paid/worked until eligibility and was unmarried/divorced/no dependents (died) their money would stay in the pot. The demo-commies like this way, they need your money to give it away to some undeserving foreigners who turn 65 and become US citizens and receive ss even though they have not paid into the system. If the program were changed they would lose part of their clandestine voting bloc. In summation, there are too, many chicken littles crying the sky will fall if the program is changed. Pro-active action in this matter sure as hell beats the standard reactive method. The AARP members need to wake up and stop being hoodwinked by the democrats who do not have their best interests in mind. "Gotta Fled" from the soap-box. NSNR Take care Oceanview, and it is always nice to see other sane people on this site.
(Denny Crane: "Sometimes you can only look for answers from God and failing that... and Fox News".)
Fine, if that's what the proposal says, I have no problem with it, but as I understand, he wants to index benefits according to what you earned during your working years, and those earning less will receive more. That was not the "promise" of social security, and it's too late to do the bait and switch.
Agreed. I was born in 1957. Looks like they're going to breach their promise to us.
I'm self-employed, my payroll tax is 12.4%, where does guy get off off saying the payroll tax is only 6.2%? Does he think an employee only pays the 6.2%? The other 6.2% his employer pays is money that costs the employer to have him as an employee that could otherwise go to the employees earnings. The employee actually pays the entire 12.4%.
I did not go college, this guy did. He must be pretending to be stupid.
Please note that he offers PRIVATE ACCOUNTS which should easily make up the difference!!!! The higher taxed individuals will not lose unless they are stupid.
I'm reading the posts now, did i stumble onto the DU you website by mistake? Were you being sarcastic when you said the rich acquired their wealth from their mommies and daddies and it should be confiscated and distributed?
What is your definition of socialism?
My favorite is when someone invents something foolproof, God creates a better class of fools.
There is already a benefit cap on Social Security which we never hear about. What is the amount of the Social Security benefit cap?
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.