At Symbolic Milepost, Bush to Hold News Conference Tonight
By RICHARD W. STEVENSON
WASHINGTON, April 28 - On the eve of the 100th day of his second term, President Bush will hold a prime-time news conference this evening to make his case for revamping Social Security and, more broadly, to reassert himself at a moment when he is under pressure on a variety of fronts.
Mr. Bush will answer questions from journalists in the East Room of the White House after making a statement of approximately 10 to 12 minutes, his chief spokesman, Scott McClellan, said.
Mr. Bush will also talk about high gasoline and crude oil prices and the importance of addressing the nation's long-term energy needs, Mr. McClellan said. The session in the East Room of the White House is to begin at 8 p.m. Eastern time.
(The White House initially set the starting time as 8:30 p.m. It said it changed the time "due to the complications of networking programming," according to Reuters.)
The news conference - the fourth Mr. Bush has held in prime time - marks a vital moment in the administration's efforts to convince the nation and Congress that Social Security's projected long-term financial problems need to be addressed now and that individual investment accounts should be part of any solution.
Mr. Bush is also certain to be asked about John R. Bolton, his embattled nominee for United Nations ambassador, whose confirmation the White House has made a top priority. Mr. Bush may be asked, too, about his relationship with Representative Tom DeLay of Texas, the powerful House majority leader, whose political future has been clouded by accusations of ethical missteps. Mr. Bush may also be queried about his lagging strength in public opinion polls.
It is probably not coincidence that his appearance tonight virtually coincides with the 100-day mark of his term. Since the days of Franklin D. Roosevelt, the first 100 days of a term have been a measure, artificial or otherwise, of how a president is doing. Mr. Bush's advisers are well aware of that, just as they know that before too many more months have passed, Mr. Bush's influence could begin to wane. Lawmakers will be focusing less on his agenda and more on their re-election campaigns in 2006 - or on the 2008 presidential contest.
As for Social Security, administration officials from Mr. Bush on down have blanketed the country for two months, trying to convince workers and retirees of the need for prompt action and of the benefits of the president's approach. But polls show that support for Mr. Bush's handling of Social Security has fallen and that voters increasingly disapprove of investment accounts. The White House had signaled that once its 60-day Social Security push ended, as it will this weekend, Mr. Bush would begin to talk specifically not just about the retirement program's problems but his preferred solutions.
His appearance tonight will be the first opportunity since Mr. Bush's State of the Union address nearly three months ago that the president can make his case to a national audience. But it will also be the first time that he has talked in any detail about the steps that he believes will be needed beyond the creation of investment accounts to ensure Social Security's solvency as the baby boom generation retires.
Mr. McClellan declined to say what steps Mr. Bush would discuss. But the president and some of his top officials have tipped their hands in recent weeks. In particular, Mr. Bush has made clear his support for cutting benefits for future retirees in a way that would hit higher-income people harder than lower-income people through an approach called progressive indexation.
Mr. Bush has also signaled that he will be willing to consider a tax increase in the form of an increase in the cap on the amount of wages that are subject to the Social Security payroll tax. House Republican leaders have rejected any tax increase, and it is unclear that Mr. Bush will embrace one in the end, but his intention in putting the possibility on the table was to signal to Democrats that he was serious about taking the politically difficult steps needed to meet his goal of making Social Security permanently solvent.
Two opinions on this news conference: the WH press corp is spiteful and nasty - they are no friends of conservatives; and Bush has too much rouge on his cheeks, or my TV needs more tuning. I think Bush is doing a good job.
Who was the brother report.
Thought there would be questions about the roadmap, the keystone issue of the NE.
All the networks BAILED!
(And it was easy to dance to;)
My only concern was his makeup. If you compare his with that of Brit Hume or anyone on Fox News, it left a lot to be desired. His makeup seemed to conceal fine musculature in his face and had a patchy look. Could be my TV but the Fox personnel looked just great. Since TV is a visual media, someone should hire Fox makeup artists the next time around.
The private accounts are a fine idea, but I don't like the idea of this "progressive indexing."
I don't why so many bad, socialist ideas get tagged with the word "progressive", but I use its appearance as a big red flag that it indicates some lefty idea.
The Right needs a better spokesperson, if indeed he speaks for the right. I realize the press is the enemy, but ducking an grinning only appear as a sign of weakness, imo. Then again, I may suffer from 'style-over-substance' syndrom. Tough cowboy trumps cute cowboy, especially when the issue is N. Korea.
This the best news conference he has ever had.
I think the mistake the Republicans made was allowing the Dems to frame the debate from the start, the plan is voluntary, you can't repeat that word enough. It's giving the option for that solid 35% who are for personal accounts to invest their money for a better return. Doing what you want with your own money at your leisure sounds reasonable to most people, on the other hand personal accounts being pushed for everyone turns some people off. I think it would be such a shame if the Democrats win this issue, because I'm young and I want to have that opportunity. All my parents give a damn about is getting their own checks.
Also the argument for Privatization using the excuse that if it is good enough for Congress it is good enough for the American people, can be a slippery slope. Liberals always say we need the same healthcare plan congress offers.
(I support privatization but the argument that it is better for people to make their own decisions is good enough) The fact is that SS is a mistake made by that Socialist RAT Roosevelt and the whole point of Privatization is to get rid of it by making people responsible, not just enlarging another entitlement program.
The press however was terrible. The administration needs to use "Reagan Rules" and limit followups to the number stated before the original question. The current policy of permitting the kind of bickering seen tonight demeans the office.
It was poor and rambling even by Bush standards.