Posted on 06/21/2005 1:02:17 PM PDT by Sub-Driver
Bush Backs Soc. Sec. Bill Without Accounts
By NEDRA PICKLER, Associated Press Writer 30 minutes ago
President Bush encouraged a Republican senator on Tuesday to offer Social Security legislation that would not include private investment accounts. The White House said the president still was committed to allowing workers to invest part of their Social Security taxes.
Bush's nod to Utah Sen. Bob Bennett's plan comes as public polls show that most Americans do not support the president's handling of the Social Security issue. Congress has been deadlocked on it.
Bennett said that during a luncheon with other Republican senators at the White House, he told the president of his plans to introduce the bill as early as next week.
"He indicated that I should go forward and do that," Bennett said. "And I'm grateful to have him do that even though his own preference would be to have personal accounts included."
The White House said the president is encouraging all members of Congress to offer their ideas to make the Social Security system solvent.
"This in no way should be interpreted to mean that the president is backing off of personal accounts," White House spokesman Trent Duffy said. "He is not."
(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...
I give up. I just give up.....
It would appear that he's backing down. I'll wait for more details before I get too upset, but this looks like a loss for us.
Might be better to just give up on 'reform' entirely until the next election, rather than have some RINOs and Dems hijack it to raise taxes without personal accounts.
"Before the pessimists take over, all Bush is doing is getting a plan out of the Senate that will be fought over in the Conference committee with the House bill that DOES INCLUDE PRIVATE ACCOUNTS."
The Democrats figured out that trick with the tax cuts and the Medicare bill. Nothing's going to get out of the Senate... the Democrats and RINOs know the "conference committee" trick.
It would appear that he's backing down. I'll wait for more details before I get too upset, but this looks like a loss for us.
-----
This Bush list of downsides just keeps growing. A President with a MANDATE, a majority in the House and Senate, and he gives away the store -- WHY? -- just so he can say he 'passed a SS bill'???? Is the legacy all that America is about now?
Another collapse.
You being manipulated my the liberal media.
Sheesh the President can't stop a Senator from intorducing a bill.
What a sissy. I see the Presidential spine and testicle removal operation was a success.
You really no how to boil things down, Pukin---
You are exactly right---most of the accomplishments of the Presidents that have been controversial, have been done in conference!!!
Ya'll listen to PK--don't panic!
Especially this president, apparently.
Looks like a train wreck is about to happen!!
I give up, you all are hopeless.
DOES INCLUDE PRIVATE ACCOUNTS...
----
OK, but we shall see...what else is buried in this bill. There certainly is more to it, than just private accounts.
URGGGGG! I hate this whole SS thing. It's like all Democrats have to do is cream "it's gonna reduce your benefits" and with the help of all the media, all America freaks, even though the private accounts would INCREASE the total payment recieved. But what is legislation without the accounts? It just reduces benefits, or raises retirement age, without any compensation. Rove is going ballistic over this becuase he knows that any plan w/o accounts is rotten because it will cause Democrats to be able to rightfully say Republicans reduced their benefits, but he also knows that we don't have the Senate votes or good public support for private accounts. I think he needs to be telling the RINO senators that in the long run, any plan w/o accounts is gonna be worse politically than a plan w/ them.
Hey, while I like the guy, W has been very disappointing at times as a leader.
He obviously can't get what he wants out of his own Republican Congress. Somebody buy this man a veto pen. Maybe if someone believed he would actually veto a bill, he might have more bargaining power.
That is a terrible headline and does not at all convey what is going on.
No, I really don't think that's what's going on in this case. I don't think anyone involved has the interest in fighting this one out, there would have been a lot more visibility on the issue if anyone *really* wanted to drive this through. I suspect this one is headed to a silent, unmarked grave.
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.