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 ...
DANG, DANG, DANG....WHAT A GUY..
I love this President!!!
Just like with Ambassador John Bolton: appointment by recession, right under the radar!!!
Gota love how they say 'divert more than $700 billion of Social Security tax revenues'.
No. Divert is what is going on now where a person's cash is DIVERTED to the government who MIGHT in the future revert a PORTION of that to the individual. When an individual's money is put into a private account which only that person can access it is not DIVERTED it is SAVED.
Okay congress, debate this! *chuckle*
I'm sorry but this is Flush the Koran Newsweak. They have no longer credible as a serious source of information. Please return when you have some crediblie sources confirm of this information please.
Naturally, because, were He to wait, the 2nd Term would go out with No visible progress, so I believe.
He had to establish some gain to push the ball out of the muddy rut.
Social security remains the third rail of American politics. The American people like SS and with the new Bush PDP, the people like Medicare even more. Big government Republicans pushing a cradle to grave nanny-state mentality.
Isn't Euro-socialism great. ~sarc off~
Well most citizens have children and grandchildren and should be interested in private accounts for the next generations who may not see any social security benefit. If not, it says something about them. A sad commentary indeed.
If you are younger, don't get physical, get political. This is your issue and this is the time for your voices to be heard. Take up the mantle and vote. Collectively, you have some clout. Use it!!
I agree. I think it would be terrific if Bush did this at minimum it would force the nutless wonders in congress to deal with issue but since it's reported in Newsweek I have much doubt about it's accuracy.
Don't be ridiculous. He can't change the law with a budget item. Bush is more of a moron than I thought.
I am not cheering because I think this is a "done deal"!!
My goodness...I watch C-span all of the time..and I know how the House and Senate work....
No, my cheering was for Bush just PUTTING IN THE BUDGET...and THEIR court to have to deal with.
He went all over America last year...and talked his head off trying to convince Americans that Social Security was in dire straits...AND that the younger generation should be "ALLOWED" to opt into private accounts...
And what happened? Not only dems...but even squishy GOPers bad mouthed him...even to the point of calling him "chicken little" about Soc. Security being in trouble..
This article just shows me that he has finally decided to be the grown up....if they aren't gonna take responsibility, he is....and THEY are gonna be the ones to have to explain to their constituents why they don't deserve the option of private accounts..
No the moron is a poster on a website who thinks their feelings about what a law means have any bearing on the matter. Since you are neither judge nor legislator, you hysteric opinions are just meaningless hot air. Nice you have feelings, please stop confusing them for facts.
I agree would like to believe but considering the source I doubt it is factual nor accurate reporting.
Last week...my husband and I had an appointment with our broker about some of our investments...
I talked to him about our kids, who are 27 and 30...and he said to have them start their own IRAs...and at 3000 per year...by their retirement it could be 1 million...
although by then, 1 million would be significantly less substantial than now...but, it is IMPERATIVE...rather than assuming Soc. Security would be there.
He said the only way he wouldn't suggest they do that...would be if their companys offer a MATCHING 401K.
Reading Newsweak always induces a vomiting reaction.
Heh, so much for the President being stupid.
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.