Haven't read the article have you.
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.
In short, the meat of the article is that he didn't talk about it. Then inserts specifics quietly under the radar for such a program. Kind of hard to turn off conservatives by talking big and not delivering, huh, when he didn't talk about this move in the SOU this year.
The rest of your post is tiresome rhetoric. Oh, there is a point to be made about expansion of the Government, but then Bush never claimed he was a small government type of guy when he ran for election. I realize some hold him in contempt for this, but I don't. He's upfront about who he is and what he intended. Any disappointment belongs to the person that believed they could try to change him. I know what I elected, overall on balance? I'm happy with who I elected. But I'm not going to throw my hands up in anger that G.W.B. hasn't morphed into a small Government type of guy because conservatives demanded he do so. That's completely absurd.
Though, he IS serious about S.S. reform. This under the radar submission is proof of it. If the Reps had the guts to act on it in the other branches, he would be limiting the scale of Government in a historical manner. And small government types would get an unexpected gift from the President who didn't make substantive promises he'd do anything but reform government, certainly not scale it back.
Now I do think there is some cause for anger over spending in Washington. Especially toward the '94 class still around. Toward the President, he's made no secret he supports spending to a degree such as with AIDS, charitable organizations and so on. But he has made rhetorical claims towards controlling spending as well, which does give Fiscal conservatives actual move for complaint. To a degree he's embraced the notion of fiscal discipline, raised hopes, and hasn't delivered with use of a VETO. On that, yeah, scream as much as you want. It's open for critisism. he's made it open to critisism.
As for myself, I'm pleased he submitted proposals for S.S. reform in the budget even if Dems, RINO's and cowardly Reps will gut it. Just as I was happy he attached a signing affidavit to the McCain bill. At least it's evidence he's fighting back for a change domestically. As well as acknowledgement the RINO's/Libs will never allow many domestic conservative victories that are focal points of attention to the people. The only shot he has is to do it quietly, to attempt to keep politics out of it. Won't work, but it's a legitimate attempt.
Not to conservatives. Conservatives place factual truth above all else. You want to keep giving Bush a pass on his domestic spending agenda, his expansion of the federal bureaucracy and his opposition to immigration reform, have at it. Make all the excuses you like. You can bet I'll be holding Bush and the GOP Congress accountable for their actions whenever they don't conform to the conservative principles and whenever they attempt to advance a liberal agenda.
LOLOL. If he was, he would have been a leader and submitted a REAL, GENUINE proposal to IMMEDIATELY PHASE-OUT Socialist Security. Last year was a golden opportunity - He can't run for re-election again anyway, so he's got nothing to lose! The system doesn't need to be "reformed," we don't need another "bi-partisan" commission. The system needs to be gradually phased out.