Where is Bush's plan? Well, we haven't seen it yet, but I know it's out there, and the Heritage Foundation wrote it. And there's a good reason why the mysterious plan remains mysterious: It sucks. Private accounts are only one of many ways they plan to destroy social security. The clues are in Bush's unintelligible gibberish as he keeps trying to make a point that he doesn't completely understand.
A lot of us libruls get some good yuks when this guy goes out there and makes an ass of himself. But for me, Hunter S. Thompson summed it up best when he said: "I almost felt sorry for him, until I heard someone call him 'Mister President,' and then I felt ashamed."
Some choice passages from Dear Leader's SS campaigning tour. Focus on derivations of the phrase "closer to what has been promised."
Recent Dubya verbal flailing, seen here and just about everywhere:
THE PRESIDENT: Because the -- all which is on the table begins to address the big cost drivers. For example, how benefits are calculate, for example, is on the table; whether or not benefits rise based upon wage increases or price increases. There's a series of parts of the formula that are being considered. And when you couple that, those different cost drivers, affecting those -- changing those with personal accounts,
the idea is to get what has been promised more likely to be -- or closer delivered to what has been promised.
Does that make any sense to you? It's kind of muddled. Look, there's a series of things that cause the -- like, for example, benefits are calculated based upon the increase of wages, as opposed to the increase of prices. Some have suggested that we calculate -- the benefits will rise based upon inflation, as opposed to wage increases. There is a reform that would help solve the red if that were put into effect. In other words, how fast benefits grow, how fast the promised benefits grow, if those -- if that growth is affected, it will help on the red.
Okay, better? I'll keep working on it.
As ashamed as it made me feel to read this unfortunate passage, I could see him working. I knew he was trying to spit something out, but just didn't have the bandwith to get his point across.
Then he did it again, and I could just see the frustrated talking points coach trying to get through to him:
And so personal accounts have got a lot of advantage. And they're a new thought in terms of Social Security, but I think over time, as this debate takes place, people will see they're an essential thought. Personal accounts alone will not solve the problem. But personal accounts coupled with other reforms that fix the problem will make it more likely a younger worker is going to get the benefits that the government has promised -- closer to the benefits the government has promised. And that's important.
There are those words again, closer to and promised. What does it mean?
Scottie, defending Dubya:
And the President believes that as part of comprehensive reform, we need to include personal accounts, so that younger Americans can have the option of realizing a rate of return that is closer to what is being promised, because right now the promised benefits of the future are an empty promise. They will not be there under the current system.
Dubya, South Bend
"This is a retirement account we're talking about. But it's your money, and the interest off that money goes to supplement the Social Security check that you're going to get from the federal government. See, personal accounts is an add-on to that which the government is going to pay you. It doesn't replace the Social Security system.
It is a part of making -- getting a better rate of return, though, so -- to come closer to the promises made. That's important to know."
----------
In other words, a personal account is on top of the check you're going to get. The government can't possibly pay the promises we have made, as you've seen from the charts. It's just impossible to do so. So my idea is to let you take some of your own money, set it aside, let it earn interest over time, let it grow, let it compound with interest, so that the money you end up having for retirement is closer to the promise the government has made.
I love that last spin: "I showed you some charts, so now you understand."
Bush, in a recent oval office interview:
''Personal accounts in themselves do not solve the problem. There has to be a permanent fix upon which personal accounts make it more likely, makes it likely, a younger worker will come closer to that which the federal government has promised because of the compounding rate of interest, and that's an important concept."
He will try to dazzle the folks with the miracle of compound interest whenever possible. And dutifully adds, "That's important!"
Read the following passage from the Heritage Foundation and you'll see:
1. What Bush has been trying to say, but unable to spit out
2. Proof that Private Accounts are not the primary goal. Reductions in benefit growth are the primary goal.
3. Bush misleads when he says wants workers to get "closer to the promised benefits." He implies an intent to live up to the promise. The real plan is more cynical, and prescribes a system that brings the benefits promised closer to what the system can afford, i.e., massive cuts in increases. There's an important distinction there. Even the Believer in Chief can't sell that sack of shit.
Heritage Foundation:
One aspect of reform that the President discussed in general terms is
a method to bring the retirement benefits promised to younger workers closer to what the system will be able to pay. Admirably, the President made clear that such a fix must be a part of reform. This could be accomplished in many ways, ranging from changing the way that past earnings are indexed to subtle shifts in the benefit formula itself.
Since these are controversial changes, it is not surprising that the Bush administration wants Congress to develop a method that it is comfortable passing. Still, the President will have to exercise strong leadership to ensure that it is not left out of the final legislation.
Failure to change the growth of future benefits would undermine Social Security's financial future, even with the establishment of PRAs.
However, this only covers the cost of establishing the accounts. It does not bring the system into long-term balance. That can be accomplished only by bringing the promised level of benefits closer to what the system can afford to pay. Until Congress decides how to accomplish this reduction in benefit growth, it will be impossible to determine the total amount of general revenue needed to permanently preserve Social Security. However, SSA scoring of comparable PRA plans show that the total cost over the first 75 years is about 40 percent less than the cost of the current system.
So What???
Private accounts are not the issue. This is about lowering expectations, and preparing people for the "reality" that the promise of social security is a false one. (Doesn't have to be that way, just is.) Rather than keep the promise, they intend to gradually adjust the promise downward, by changing the way increases are calculated. Private accounts may be a red herring, but they're really not the whole point. At least they have some dogmatic appeal to them and they could theoretically be sold to the public by a good salesman. But we've heard Scottie utter on more than one occasion that private accounts are only "part of a comprehensive solution." The real meat to the comprehensive solution is the slashing of increases. And the Repugs might even give in on the private accounts if necessary, as long as the other structural changes are made. Watch for the bait-and-switch.