The same place it would come from if Bush lets people put their own money in private retirement accounts: somewhere else. My question is, if Bush lets people set aside x amount of their own money to fund private accounts (under the guise of "choice"), why doesn't he just reduce the tax by the same amount, x, such that those people can have their own money directly, and invest it however they see fit?
Becase of the fear that most of them would spend it, instead of investing, and then they would have to go on welfare when they retire.