Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
100 words for 100 days: submit your 100 word essay and get published on AlterNet
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement

Little News, One Big Problem

By David Corn, The Nation. Posted April 29, 2005.


At Bush's primetime press conference, bland questions and false factoids. And Bush shoots himself in the foot on Social Security.
Advertisement

There was not much news in George W. Bush's fourth primetime press conference. He acknowledged he could do nothing much about the high price of gas except to plead with the Saudis and other oil producers to boost production. He predictably called on Congress to pass an energy bill that would lead to more drilling and an expansion of nuclear power. While paying lip service to conservation, he only referred to developing technology that would save energy; he did not mention changing consumption patterns.

On Social Security, Bush stuck with privatized accounts, but he also advocated--in the only substantial news of the evening--means-testing cost of living adjustments for Social Security benefits, raising the prospect of real cuts for a majority of future beneficiaries. He tried to sugarcoat this hard-to-swallow news two ways. First, he vowed that future recipients will receive benefits equal or greater to those being handed out today. But that was spin, for this carefully constructed explanation ignored the need to boost benefits to keep pace with inflation. Equal benefits would mean reduced benefits in real terms. Second, he suggested those who opt for a private account would end up making enough to compensate for the cuts, but polls show that a majority of Americans do not buy this argument. It may make policy sense--though not political sense--to turn Social Security into an outright welfare program: benefits for those who need them, less or none for the well-off. But Bush's vague proposal won't sell on Capital Hill or beyond. How many Republicans are eager to snatch benefits from middle- or high-income Americans? Minutes after Bush finished, Senator Sam Brownback, a conservative Republican from Kansas, was asked whether he would support a sliding scale for cost of living increases in Social Security benefits, and he said, "I don't think that's the route we ought to be going."

So with the two free throws Bush had before the questioning began, he failed to score. And during the course of the hour-long press conference, he misled the public on several key facts.

In discussing Social Security, Bush once more said that come 2041 the program will be "bankrupt." That makes it sound as if there will be no money available for retirees. At that point in time--or, according to estimates produced by the Congressional Budget Office, in 2051--the program will be able to give retirees 70 percent of the scheduled benefits. That's a problem, but it's not bankruptcy. Bush also repeated another false factoid about Social Security, claiming that "every year we wait" to reform Social Security it costs an additional $600 billion. As the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities and others--including the American Academy of Actuaries-- have pointed out, this is a phony number. The actuaries noted that when members of the public hear such a figure they are likely to "be misled into believing that the program's financial situation is deteriorating and the cost of restoring actuarial balance is increasing, even if this is not the case."

Talking about energy, Bush pushed for drilling in the Alaska wilderness, and he used an untrue argument that proponents of drilling have been tossing around for years. He said that the wilderness area encompasses 19 million acres, yet the drilling would only affect 2000 acres. Sounds like a drop in the bucket. But this 2000-acre figure was discredited long ago, for it only covers the area on which equipment touches the ground. It does not include, for example, all the land that would be used for pipelines and roads. By this method of measurement, a car takes up only several square inches of space--the area where the rubber hits the road.


Digg!

David Corn is the Washington editor of The Nation and author of "The Lies of George W. Bush: Mastering the Politics of Deception." He writes a blog at davidcorn.com.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »

Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Tell The Truth Mr. Bush!
Posted by: k9disc on Apr 29, 2005 8:06 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
A couple of talking points that we can all take from this debate.

Regarding Social Security:
There is only one thing we need to say in addressing Bush's rhetoric on this issue, and we should say it loud and clear:
Tell the Truth Mr. Bush!

We should stay in our frame:

Social Security is healthy and successful for the next 40 years.

Social Security is insurance, not an investment.

Social Security is Americans helping Americans: In the twilight of our lives, or when family tragedy strikes, Social Security is there; we are there to help our fellow Americans.

We can then quickly shift to real live present day crises, like:

Energy Policy:

President Bush's explanation of the root problem was insincere. The root problem is the fact that the Republicans made the problem worse over the last 15 years. Refusing to increase fuel efficiency. Keeping their heads in the sand to serve their ideology.

Speaking of ideology, this current demand driven market is what their ideology is all about. Every dime of increased gas costs is positive GDP growth. Republican ideology is the root cause of this energy crisis.

Bush mentioned nothing on renewable energy. Distributed renewable energy for American residences wil promote freedom from spikes in energy markets. Why no mention of renewables. All of these problems stems from their private sector ideology; they want to make money off of this crisis.

Just a few thoughts off the top of my head.

Ron

(sorry, bolding seems to not work on this form)

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

When is an IOU not an IOU?
Posted by: dennyduke@earthlink.net on Apr 29, 2005 9:00 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I've been reading about Bush's latest gabfest. Including the transcript.

I need to point out one incredible hypocrisy; on the one hand, he's willing to let workers invest our social security deductions in treasury bonds (and, I assume, put them in our file cabinets with the other IOU's we own) and that's a sure thing "backed by the full faith and credit of the United States government."

But a few questions further, he's telling us of those same T-Bonds, which were also bought with our social security deductions (the SS Trust Fund), "... all that's left behind is file cabinets full of IOUs."

Well, George, which is it?

- duke

- Note: Quotes are from the transcript.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Abolish Social Security
Posted by: commonsense on May 1, 2005 5:13 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
No, really, abolish it.

According to estimates, entitlement spending now accounts for some 60% of the annual federal budget. With that
same budget now relying on some 400+ billion dollars
in annual deficit spending, america has entitled itself out
of an affordable tax system, with future estimates painting
a darker picture with each passing year. The current federal
debt now stands at some 7.7 trillion dollars, which requires
almost the same 400 billion dollars in annual interest to
satisfy.

There's about so much number-juggling you can effectively get away with, then you have to finally up and admit that you can't afford to keep running the way you're running, and you have to make some painful and overdue changes to your budget management style.

Social security is just one example of entitlements that
will have to be done away with, sooner or later. In their place
some quick creative writing could be executed to create
a worthy tax 'shelter' of sorts for the elderly, for purposes of this concept those over 65 years of age in lieu of another
monthly entitlement check to accomplish essentially the same objective of not subjecting those that have spent 40 years or more in the workforce and who have little to show for it to an
environment in which they're not able to cope fiscally. There's other ways to 'skin' this 'rat' than by perpetuating a Ponzi scheme that's already showing lots of stretch marks....working
the federal budget up to 75% entitlements isn't the right way,
and the Bush administration, being 'conservative' and all,
should be taking aggressive action to not only end the tidal
flood of entitlement cheese, but also be making noticeable
inroads on the debt issue itself. A trillion in debt might be sustainable, what promises to be 10 trillion by the time they're finished in 2008 is NOT sustainable. When americans
are 'asked' to pay a full trillion dollars in interest on a debt
that most didn't voluntarily incur, and when the amount of that
debt is calculated out to be a fair share between the 157 million(approx.) actual americans holding down some kind of job, which works out to somewhere on the high side of 70k per person by 2008, it's time to break out the pencil sharpener and re-figure their figures. They can't b.s. THIS one...

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]