Proudly cross-posted at the Alabama Democratic Party blog:
http://www.aladems.net/nucleus/index.php?itemid=325
Somebody in Big Media ought to pay attention to this.
President Bush and his GOP allies have been pushing for partial privatization of Social Security for months now, despite increasing public skepticism.
Let's go back to the 2005 State of the Union speech for a brief refresher on where the Bush-push for began:
Thirteen years from now, in 2018, Social Security will be paying out more than it takes in. And every year afterward will bring a new shortfall, bigger than the year before. For example, in the year 2027, the government will somehow have to come up with an extra $200 billion to keep the system afloat -- and by 2033, the annual shortfall would be more than $300 billion. By the year 2042, the entire system would be exhausted and bankrupt.
(There's more!)
A lot of smart people disagree with the President and his assessment (like
FactCheck.org), but let's assume for this exercise that he is right. Just pretend for a second.
Let's now go back to a time not-so-long ago, April 5th, when Bush visited a West Virginia University.
President Bush on Tuesday used a four-drawer filing cabinet stuffed with paper representing government IOUs that he said symbolized the Social Security trust fund's bleak outlook for meeting Americans' future retirement needs.
"A lot of people in America think there is a trust -- that we take your money in payroll taxes and then we hold it for you and then when you retire, we give it back to you," Bush said in a speech at the University of West Virginia at Parkersburg.
"But that's not the way it works," Bush said. "There is no trust `fund' -- just IOUs that I saw firsthand," Bush said.
Let's recap Bush's argument: Social Security is going broke, and the trust fund is dire straits.
If that's true, then can someone explain this to me?
A group of House Republicans unveiled a Social Security redesign measure Wednesday with a private retirement accounts provision that would be funded through the excess revenues now flowing into the Social Security system.
So let me get this straight. The GOP has been running around for months yelling that Social Security is going broke (and that private accounts are needed), and now they're advocating funding private accounts with excess Social Security funds. Does anyone else find this a bit odd?
If the GOP was really interested in strengthening Social Security to make it solvent for future generations, they'd push for initiatives that increase revenue, not drain funds from the program.
I've got a few GOP friends, and most of them have labeled me a hysteric for saying that part of the Bush/GOP agenda is to dismantle Social Security. I've always stood by my claim, and today is no different. Everything coming from those DC-Republicans says they want to take apart the system. If they didn't, we'd see a whole different set of Social Security proposals from them.
Oh, while we're at it, let's go way back in time to this.
According to a July 28th, 2000 article in USA Today, back in 1978 when President Bush was running for congress in Texas, "he predicted Social Security would go broke in 10 years and said the system should give people 'the chance to invest money the way they feel' is best."
He was wrong then, and he's wrong now. This Democrat is proud to oppose Social Security privatization.