Thoughts On Bush Press Conference
The President spoke yesterday about energy and social security (transcript here).
I applaud the House for passing a good energy bill. Now the Senate needs to act on this urgent priority.
In the early 1990s, George H.W. Bush presented an energy bill to the Congress which failed for one reason: It included the opening-up of ANWR in it, and thus the Democrats rejected it. If W. tries to do the same his plan won't pass. Come on, Mr. President. You want to tear up the arctic wildlife refuge? Fine. Just present it to Congress on its own, not with something else to give it cover.
These changes have put Social Security on the path to bankruptcy. When the baby boomers start retiring in three years, Social Security will start heading toward the red. In 2017, the system will start paying out more in benefits than it collects in payroll taxes. Every year after that the shortfall will get worse, and by 2041, Social Security will be bankrupt.
No, Mr. President, don't attempt to say that Social Security will be Pearl Harbored by its own shortfalls in 2041. By then, it will only be able to make around 3/4s of its payments. A problem? Sure. But that, Mr. Bush, does not equate to bankruptcy.
Secondly, I believe a reform system should protect those who depend on Social Security the most. So I propose a Social Security system in the future where benefits for low-income workers will grow faster than benefits for people who are better off.
I honestly applaud the sentiment behind this idea, but, and I'm just curious here: Where are the Republicans to call this class warfare? I mean, you know. That's what they do when anyone shows more sympathy to the poor than the rich, and what's more class warfare!-ey than "the poor get more out of my system?"
In a reformed Social Security system, voluntary personal retirement accounts would offer workers a number of investment options that are simple and easy to understand. I know some Americans have reservations about investing in the stock market, so I propose that one investment option consist entirely of Treasury bonds, which are backed by the full faith and credit of the United States government.
You know, if it weren't for the fact that I fear George W. Bush's fiscal policies (seems to me he's just trying to bankrupt the Treasury) I'd love this idea. As it stands, I like it. One of my top reservations with the President's Social Security plan was that you'd be gambling it away in the Stock Market, and, frankly, as great as it is to control your own money, the Government shouldn't allow people the oppurtunity to throw away their Social Security cash. But, with these Treasury Bonds as an option, I think his idea (or his advisors' idea) is sound.
Finally, because the question-and-answer session with the press didn't excite me toomuch, allow me to present to you my favorite Bushisms of the night.
Listen, the energy bill is certainly no quick fix. You can't wave a magic wand. I wish I could. It's like that soldier at Fort Hood that said, how come you're not lowering the price of gasoline? I was having lunch with the fellow, and he said, go lower the price of gasoline, President. I said, I wish I could. It just doesn't work that way.
See, I didn't want to send somebody up there who said, it's not -- it's not worth a darn; I don't think I need to go.
Secondly, I like the idea of giving someone ownership.
Let's see here. Richard. There is somebody with a bad throat back there.
I applaud the House for passing a good energy bill. Now the Senate needs to act on this urgent priority.
In the early 1990s, George H.W. Bush presented an energy bill to the Congress which failed for one reason: It included the opening-up of ANWR in it, and thus the Democrats rejected it. If W. tries to do the same his plan won't pass. Come on, Mr. President. You want to tear up the arctic wildlife refuge? Fine. Just present it to Congress on its own, not with something else to give it cover.
These changes have put Social Security on the path to bankruptcy. When the baby boomers start retiring in three years, Social Security will start heading toward the red. In 2017, the system will start paying out more in benefits than it collects in payroll taxes. Every year after that the shortfall will get worse, and by 2041, Social Security will be bankrupt.
No, Mr. President, don't attempt to say that Social Security will be Pearl Harbored by its own shortfalls in 2041. By then, it will only be able to make around 3/4s of its payments. A problem? Sure. But that, Mr. Bush, does not equate to bankruptcy.
Secondly, I believe a reform system should protect those who depend on Social Security the most. So I propose a Social Security system in the future where benefits for low-income workers will grow faster than benefits for people who are better off.
I honestly applaud the sentiment behind this idea, but, and I'm just curious here: Where are the Republicans to call this class warfare? I mean, you know. That's what they do when anyone shows more sympathy to the poor than the rich, and what's more class warfare!-ey than "the poor get more out of my system?"
In a reformed Social Security system, voluntary personal retirement accounts would offer workers a number of investment options that are simple and easy to understand. I know some Americans have reservations about investing in the stock market, so I propose that one investment option consist entirely of Treasury bonds, which are backed by the full faith and credit of the United States government.
You know, if it weren't for the fact that I fear George W. Bush's fiscal policies (seems to me he's just trying to bankrupt the Treasury) I'd love this idea. As it stands, I like it. One of my top reservations with the President's Social Security plan was that you'd be gambling it away in the Stock Market, and, frankly, as great as it is to control your own money, the Government shouldn't allow people the oppurtunity to throw away their Social Security cash. But, with these Treasury Bonds as an option, I think his idea (or his advisors' idea) is sound.
Finally, because the question-and-answer session with the press didn't excite me toomuch, allow me to present to you my favorite Bushisms of the night.
Listen, the energy bill is certainly no quick fix. You can't wave a magic wand. I wish I could. It's like that soldier at Fort Hood that said, how come you're not lowering the price of gasoline? I was having lunch with the fellow, and he said, go lower the price of gasoline, President. I said, I wish I could. It just doesn't work that way.
See, I didn't want to send somebody up there who said, it's not -- it's not worth a darn; I don't think I need to go.
Secondly, I like the idea of giving someone ownership.
Let's see here. Richard. There is somebody with a bad throat back there.
posted by ThePoliticalPenguin at Friday, April 29, 2005
1 Comments:
Good article.
Seems funny to me no one uses the obvious rebuttal to Bush's alleging S.S. will go broke in x many years, or will oinly be able to pay out x amount....
See, this is a RETIREMENT fund.
As you get older, reach retirement, BY DESIGN you stop paying in, and DRAW DOWN your retirement savings.
BY DESIGN it is to be DRAWN DOWN.
So, the REAL NEXUS here is: In 1983 (?), Reagan upped the benefits (pandering to retirees), and also almost quadrupled the FICA deductions.
MANY of us then (go check out archives of "Nightline" with Koppel, I recall watching many debates on this issue)were concerned that @ 2040, the amount being paid in wouldn't be enough to FULLY FUND the Trust fund for the POST Baby Boomer generations.
But, that is for YOU YOUNG folks to decide: Do I want to take on a QUADRUPLED FICA Payment, like the BABYBOOMERS DID(!!!!!), so those now in retirement AND approaching retirement, get a decent, livable old age pension.
THAT is the CRUX of the matter, kiddo.
Post a Comment
<< Home