Sleight of Hand: Bush Buried Detailed Social Security Privatization Proposals in his Budget

Newsweek ^ | February 8, 2006 | Allan Sloan

[West Coast Conservative]

If you read enough numbers, you never know what you'll find. Take President Bush and private Social Security accounts.

Last year, even though Bush talked endlessly about the supposed joys of private accounts, he never proposed a specific plan to Congress and never put privatization costs in the budget. But this year, with no fanfare whatsoever, Bush stuck a big Social Security privatization plan in the federal budget proposal, which he sent to Congress on Monday.

His plan would let people set up private accounts starting in 2010 and would divert more than $700 billion of Social Security tax revenues to pay for them over the first seven years.

If this comes as a surprise to you, have no fear. You're not alone. Bush didn't pitch private Social Security accounts in his State of the Union Message last week.

First, he drew a mocking standing ovation from Democrats by saying that "Congress did not act last year on my proposal to save Social Security," even though, as I said, he'd never submitted specific legislation.

Then he seemed to be kicking the Social Security problem a few years down the road in typical Washington fashion when he asked Congress "to join me in creating a commission to examine the full impact of baby-boom retirements on Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid," adding that the commission would be bipartisan "and offer bipartisan solutions."

But anyone who thought that Bush would wait for bipartisanship to deal with Social Security was wrong. Instead, he stuck his own privatization proposals into his proposed budget.

"The Democrats were laughing all the way to the funeral of Social Security modernization," White House spokesman Trent Duffy told me in an interview Tuesday, but "the president still cares deeply about this."

[jec41]

LOL And you say I'm not playing with a full deck of statistics. I think I know where you're pulling your data from and its not coming from OMB.gov. Your pulling data from a space called, 'uranus'.

No the math can be made complex but its pretty simple. Reagan budget deficient 6%. Bush budget deficient 2.7 % or ~450 billion dollars. a 6% budget deficient today would be over 1 trillion dollars and a accumulate inflation rate of a 100% is 2 trillion dollars. You can find Reagans 6% deficient number, Bush's 2.7% deficient number, Bush's 450 billion dollar deficient, and inflation rate at OMB.gov but you have to know how to do math. I anticipated the slight when I posted and take no offense. Logic dictates that slight and accusation occur when there is insufficient thought.

[Turborules]

who ever Bush is does not matter, Reagan Man, me too, Bush is the President and a friend of mine...regardless, your negative insight is no less than the dim blogs if that is your view of such a man who has done more than any other president, than Reagan to protect America...by the way Harriet was a set up for the dims...

PS...in a forum of Ideas, to read yours is my option, to reply is my option, for you to like my comment or not is yours...so let us enjoy our freedom to disagree...if you insist on going taliban on me...bring alot more firepower than you have presented so far...now was that harsh? I am sorry I love this site, and you too! PS you ideas do not bother me...it is the negativity I will always disagree with, truth never...complain with a clear option in mind and I am there with anyone...I know it is the responsibility of the communicator to make themself understood, not the reader or the listner...

[Turborules]

Excellent response, Airborne...All the Way 82ND ABN...math using the same statistic data from your to year is the truth...except when it is shaped by partisanship This Budget is the first after Bush and Rove knew the second term was won! Now the privatiztion hammer will come down...or the shrill voice Hillery will be heard for too many more years...not no not me I a not going to help her destroy Anerica

[Pirate21]

  Thanks!

[BenLurkin]

"Bush also wants to change the way Social Security benefits are calculated for most people by adopting so-called progressive indexing. Lower-income people would continue to have their Social Security benefits tied to wages, but the benefits paid to higher-paid people would be tied to inflation.

"Wages have typically risen 1.1 percent a year more than inflation, so over time, that disparity would give lower-paid and higher-paid people essentially the same benefit. However, higher-paid workers would be paying substantially more into the system than lower-paid people would.

"This means that although progressive indexing is an attractive idea from a social-justice point of view, it would reduce Social Security's political support by making it seem more like welfare than an earned benefit."

[Ol' Dan Tucker]

He went all over America last year...and talked his head off trying to convince Americans that Social Security was in dire straits...AND that the younger generation should be "ALLOWED" to opt into private accounts...

Funny how Bush forgot to mention to all these Americans that he'd signed a Social Security Totalization Agreement with Mexico that will grant Mexican illegal aliens and their Mexican national families access to our Social Security system and the effect this agreement will have on current condition of the SS system.

If you think it's in dire straits right now, wait'll you see what 20+ million illegal aliens and their familiies will do to it.

[jec41]

Excellent response, Airborne...All the Way 82ND ABN...math using the same statistic data from your to year is the truth...except when it is shaped by partisanship

Partisanship is of a philosophy and normally a illogical deduction rather than a logical deduction. Weakness of argument would delegate partisanship opinion, not logic. Thank you for the compliment. Just having a little fun!!!

[evilC]

From the article:

“In the first year of private accounts, people would be allowed to divert up to 4 percent of their wages covered by Social Security into what Bush called "voluntary private accounts." The maximum contribution to such accounts would start at $1,100 annually and rise by $100 a year through 2016.”

Sounds like a good start. $1000-1600 per year is not a huge amount of money but with compounding (especially for young people) ...

[okie01]

The Medicare Prescription Drug Program has pushed America closer to our Euro-socialist cousins and that is not the direction we should be headed.

There is one saving grace in the Prescription Drug Program. One.

Buried deep within the bill are Medical Savings Accounts -- one of the things that can help solve the healthcare issue.

They slid thru under the radar, just as the Private Accounts for Social Security are being handled.

[NRA2BFree]

This is proof that NONE of the RATS read the budget. I bet they were furious when they found out about it. IF only one had read it, they would have tipped the rest of them off in a hurry. Serves them right! No wonder they hate Bush. They joke all the time that Bush is dumb. I guess he showed them who the dummies really are. LOL

[nopardons]

I know that this was meant to be a negative article, but instead, he just DELIGHTED a whole bunch of Conservatives.LOL

WAY TO GO, PRESIDENT BUSH!!!!!!!!!!

[nopardons]

Nope, YOU are the moron and obviously don't understand the written English word.

[LibertarianInExile]

I don't really understand how this works from the article, which makes it look like simply another tax-free account? From what is posted, it doesn't at all seem to divert money that would otherwise be going into Social Security into private accounts. Does anyone have a link to the actual law everyone is flailing each other about?

[Turborules]

This is what I am trying to say too, Bush is moving to fulfill his Platform, and working the system in a new and unique way for Repulicans...Bush does the Rope a Dope and just keeps getting the dims madder and madder!!!

Yep dumb like a Fox on Steroids...<:o))

[nopardons]

Exactly so!

Because the damned Dems and some damned RINOS keep trying to shoot EVERYTHING the president wants to do, down, he must find a way around them. Of course he tries to do things in the usually way, but that NEVER seems to work. So he finds other ways to get someone on a court, in place at the UN, and now, a baby step in privatizing Social Security.

What FR's UNAPPEASABLES and I WANT EVERYTHG I WANT NOW,RIGHT NOW, OR I'M GONNA HOLD MY BREATH UNTIL I GET IT groups refuse to understand and accept, is that the damned Dems had generations to get us to the point we are at today. President Bush isn't a benevolent dictator, he can't just order something to be done and it'll be done, but he has and IS still making great progress towards the yearned for goals.

[Turborules]

Bush told all of us what he wanted to do at each election, and he sets up the pins with his platform on them and takes them down...bit by bit...he is bowling 230 now, we can see 300 of we win 2006 and 2008 to make the changes in the USA we conservatives pray for...the USA did not get in the economic mess in a few years. The USA, led by wimps, and crooks fell into the abyss of Scocialism, and it has taken near 50 to entrench so much entitlement. The give me attitudes of the masses must be replaced with enlightenment and realism...The truth is always simply understood... I know that when the American Youth start to see the money normally lost via WH from their pay...and see compounding interest work it magic after a few years... and knowing it is their money...bet your booty, much of the risky behavior will start to decline... just like the Democratic Party Knows it will... Make tax cuts permanent, dump the IRS as a collection agency to an investment service...and watch how much capital will be available to shoot the Moon and Mars! Cut capital gains...more wealth to the middle class, Private Retirement accounts ...hell if PRAs' get started too it is over for the dims, because as the value of all our money accounts grow for us and our own Youth...the New retirement...these young capitalist will demand eliminating SS as it exists!!! and as we know the Ponsi scheme will be over for the empty and foolish Hidden Taxation SS program!!!
The Lock Box is now ours and the Government will adapt to the new realities or be voted out by all the NEW Smarter Capitalist PIGS!!!!!!!!!
Smaller Gov. will be demanded by the majority... because?... the bubble of dims lies about the economy will be revealed to all workers...the Sick, and the US Government will have more money to heal people,+ because so many many fewer people will need medical emergency or hospitalizing...wow turned into a Rant...

I feel so good about the way Iraq is going, the set up to free Iran of the Mullahs, Syria gone...Radical Muslims destroying themselves with Hate!!!! GW and his group of High Achievers administration, is the best, a effective conservative government, not the Most Conservative. With real success comes even greater understanding of Conservatism by the masses!( a little Pinko language) GW is the Best follow on legacy of the Reagan years we could hope for today, with so many RINOs and leftist entrenched within our Government and its many bloated agencies...

Go! W kick some dim and Rino Butt!!! Turbo

[Mr_Peter]

"Nope, YOU are the moron and obviously don't understand the written English word"

Very intellegent reply. Is English your second language? I don't post very much anymore because of morons like you.

[ohioWfan]

Reagan won in two historic landslide victories and didn't have to wait around for votes to be counted multiple times to see if he was the winner.

Excuse me, RM...........are you implying that the 2000 election was not legitimate?

I know you haven't actually said that, but the only people I know who bring up the 2000 elections are Democrats, and since I know that you're not one, I wonder why you felt this was germane to the subject.

(And please just clarify what you meant without using the word 'sycophant,' OK? I know you tend to be emotional and lash out at me when I challenge you, but I'd like a serious response to my question).

Much that you have said on this thread I agree with.........just not your conclusions that Bush is a rotten person and lousy leader because he spends too much money.....

Thanks for your forthcoming polite response.

[nopardons]

No, I am not the reason you no longer post very much; but it's a blessing that you don't and I'll wear your excuse, with pride. :-)