Posted on 02/08/2006 9:24:57 AM PST by 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."
(Excerpt) Read more at msnbc.msn.com ...
Don't you just love the Whine All The Time Choir here on Freeper? The scream 100% of the time at the Republicans to do something and then when the Republicans do, the SAME Freepers start screaming how nothing can be done about the problem!
Notice ONE constant? They NEVER attack the Left on anything. ALL 100% of their posting is firing on what is supposedly THEIR side.
One has to wonder reading their constant whining JUST whoes side they REALLY are on?
The first part is right and since I don't know how much of a moron you are, I can't comment on your last sentence.
President Bush can't change the law since the congress does that, but he can make them accept or reject his proposals. The point is that he hasn't given up on SS change.
Please see post #14....
BUSH IS NOT A MORON, YOU IDIOT.
Yes, I do notice Johnnie. FWIW. I'm with you.
I know that MSNBC and Newsweak are NOT good sources...but, hey...IF this is true..
I just think it is another example of Bush being one move ahead of the dems...AND, if they don't do this..he will have had it ON RECORD in the Budget to pull Soc. Security from the chasm it is heading for...
and so, it will be up to them to explain why THEY dropped the ball.
I just PRAY that the RINOS in Congress get their acts together for a change.
My point was this. Bush is good when it comes to talking the talk on certain domestic issues like Social Security reform. But he loses credibility with folks and specifically with conservatives, when he then turns around and signs off on the biggest government program since Medicare itself was created in 1965 under liberal Democrat LBJ. The Medicare Prescription Drug Program has pushed America closer to our Euro-socialist cousins and that is not the direction we should be headed. The Founding Fathers wanted this great nation to have a limited government. PresBush and the GOP Congress have expanded the federal bureaucracy like no US government in 40 years. Maybe in our entire history. It's time for some fiscal sanity in WashDC. Reagan advanced the first conservative Presidency since Coolidge. Gingrich gave us the first GOP Congress in 40 years. Now we have a GOP POTUS and a GOP Congress, yet after five long years, they can't get a damn thing done on domestic spending issues. Not to mention immigration reform. I call that pathetic leadership.
Have a nice day.
So do I, Sir! Go Mr. President!!!
I'll take you serious RM when you attack the Democrats 1/5th as often as you attack what is supposedly "your side"
He'll let Hillary take the credit for it when he hands over the reigns. Good friends wash each other's backs.
I believe in privatization in any event and the Dems will do it when they get the credit.
GOP are boot lickers and gloves.
Btw, I will never take you seriously. Not now. Now ever.
I am sorry...I only responded to the insult I felt that you assumed I was dumb enough to think that putting this in his Budget meant it was going to happen.
As far as the rest is concerned...it happened, get over it. I never said Bush was perfect...and that I agree with all that was done.
I think his biggest mistake...was going to Washington after getting elected and thinking that he had to PROVE something...and he tried TOO hard and swayed too far left.
His immigration reform plans...I don't have a clue why he is being so stubborn on the "guest worker program" aside from being realistic in some regards...and also practical in knowing that REAL reform would never happen anyway because of the hugh voting bloc that the Hispanic population has become...
I don't know...and I am disappointed...I HATE his stance on immigration and border control.
But, it doesn't make him a moron, or a failure.
That is what I wanted a year ago. Last year's plan was a general "let's privatize a little of SS. Congress, please work out the details." He has realized that Congress won't do any such thing, so he puts his proposal forward.
Now to track down the details to see if I like this new plan.
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.
Ping list for the discussion of the politics and social (and sometimes nostalgic) aspects that directly effects Generation Reagan / Generation-X (Those born from 1965-1981) including all the spending previous generations (i.e. The Baby Boomers) are doing that Gen-X and Y will end up paying for.
Freep mail me to be added or dropped. See my home page for details and previous articles.
You may claim what ever you like. Your ACTIONS, however, speak louder then your words
I can't speak for everyone, but the guy you addressed this post to is a VERY vocal critic of both the left as well as the GOP when deserved.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.