|
Politics
Political
news
Political
commentary
Harry's
blog
Opinions
and background on the issues
Massachusetts
politics
Political parties
and PACs
Resources
for candidates
Resources
for ballot
initiative campaigns
Resources
for voters
Civic
engagement
BarnRaisers
|
President
George W. Bush, Remarks on Social Security reform, excerpted from the
State of the Union Address, February 2, 2005:
One of America's most important
institutions, a symbol of the trust between generations, is also in
need of wise and effective reform. Social Security was a great moral
success of the 20th century, and we must honor its great purposes in
this new century.
The
system, however, on its current path, is headed toward bankruptcy. And
so we must join together to strengthen and save Social Security.
Today,
more than 45 million Americans receive Social Security benefits, and
millions more are nearing retirement and for them the system is strong
and fiscally sound. I have a message for every American who is 55 or
older: Do not let anyone mislead you. For you, the Social Security
system will not change in any way.
For
younger workers, the Social Security system has serious problems that
will grow worse with time. Social Security was created decades ago,
for a very different era. In those days people didn't live as long,
benefits were much lower than they are today, and a half century ago,
about 16 workers paid into the system for each person drawing
benefits.
Our
society has changed in ways the founders of Social Security could not
have foreseen. In today's world, people are living longer and
therefore drawing benefits longer and those benefits are scheduled to
rise dramatically over the next few decades.
And
instead of 16 workers paying in for every beneficiary, right now it's
only about three workers and over the next few decades, that number
will fall to just two workers per beneficiary. With each passing year,
fewer workers are paying ever-higher benefits to an ever-larger number
of retirees.
So here is
the result: 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. If steps are not
taken to avert that outcome, the only solutions would be drastically
higher taxes, massive new borrowing, or sudden and severe cuts in
Social Security benefits or other government programs.
I
recognize that 2018 and 2042 may seem like a long way off. But those
dates are not so distant, as any parent will tell you. If you have a
5-year-old, you're already concerned about how you'll pay for college
tuition 13 years down the road. If you've got children in their 20s,
as some of us do, the idea of Social Security collapsing before they
retire does not seem like a small matter.
And it
should not be a small matter to the United States Congress. You and I
share a responsibility. We must pass reforms that solve the financial
problems of Social Security once and for all.
Fixing
Social Security permanently will require an open, candid review of the
options. Some have suggested limiting benefits for wealthy retirees.
Former Congressman Tim Penny has raised the possibility of indexing
benefits to prices rather than wages.
During the
1990s, my predecessor, President Clinton, spoke of increasing the
retirement age. Former Senator John Breaux suggested discouraging
early collection of Social Security benefits. The late Senator Daniel
Patrick Moynihan recommended changing the way benefits are calculated.
All these
ideas are on the table. I know that none of these reforms would be
easy. But we have to move ahead with courage and honesty, because our
children's retirement security is more important than partisan
politics. I will work with members of Congress to find the most
effective combination of reforms.
I will
listen to anyone who has a good idea to offer. We must, however, be
guided by some basic principles. We must make Social Security
permanently sound, not leave that task for another day. We must not
jeopardize our economic strength by increasing payroll taxes.
We must
ensure that lower-income Americans get the help they need to have
dignity and peace of mind in their retirement. We must guarantee that
there is no change for those now retired or nearing retirement. And we
must take care that any changes in the system are gradual, so younger
workers have years to prepare and plan for their future.
As we fix
Social Security, we also have the responsibility to make the system a
better deal for younger workers. And the best way to reach that goal
is through voluntary personal retirement accounts.
Here is
how the idea works. Right now, a set portion of the money you earn is
taken out of your paycheck to pay for the Social Security benefits of
today's retirees. If you are a younger worker, I believe you should be
able to set aside part of that money in your own retirement account,
so you can build a nest egg for your own future.
Here is
why personal accounts are a better deal. Your money will grow, over
time, at a greater rate than anything the current system can deliver
and your account will provide money for retirement over and above the
check you will receive from Social Security.
In
addition, you'll be able to pass along the money that accumulates in
your personal account, if you wish, to your children or grandchildren.
And best of all, the money in the account is yours, and the government
can never take it away.
The goal
here is greater security in retirement, so we will set careful
guidelines for personal accounts. We will make sure the money can only
go into a conservative mix of bonds and stock funds. We will make sure
that your earnings are not eaten up by hidden Wall Street fees.
We will make sure there are good options to
protect your investments from sudden market swings on the eve of your
retirement. We will make sure a personal account can't be emptied out
all at once, but rather paid out over time, as an addition to
traditional Social Security benefits.
And we
will make sure this plan is fiscally responsible, by starting personal
retirement accounts gradually, and raising the yearly limits on
contributions over time, eventually permitting all workers to set
aside four percentage points of their payroll taxes in their accounts.
Personal
retirement accounts should be familiar to federal employees, because
you already have something similar, called the Thrift Savings Plan,
which lets workers deposit a portion of their paychecks into any of
five different broadly based investment funds.
Ensuring
the Security of the Social Security Program: "Senator
Moynihan's Last Legacy," Cato
Institute, March 28, 2003. "Reforming
Social Security," Brooks
Briefing, January 13, 2005.
Alexandra MacRae,
"Beyond the Point of No Return," Christian Science Monitor, September
14, 2004: "Schools today are
quicker to expel problem students. But what happens to these kids once
they're out the door?":
New
York: Eighteen-year-old Ivory recently spent nine months
working full time at a clothing store in her New York City neighborhood.
Many of the students who had once been her classmates were still in school
during those months, but Ivory had stopped attending classes.
Earlier in her school career she had been both
suspended and expelled from school. Those two lengthy absences left her
shy of enough credits to complete her high school degree. When she
realized -- just before her seventeenth birthday -- that she would not be
able to graduate with her class, she became discouraged and quit school
altogether. (continued)
Norman Podhoretz, "Enter the Bush Doctrine," Wall
Street Journal OpinionJournal.com, September 2, 2004:
The
Truman Doctrine of 1947 was born with the announcement that "it must
be the policy of the United States to support free peoples who are
resisting attempted subjugation by armed minorities or by outside
pressure." Beginning with a special program of aid to Greece and
Turkey, which were then threatened by communist takeovers, the strategy
was broadened within a few months by the launching of a much larger and
more significant program of economic aid that came to be called the "Marshall
Plan." The purpose of the Marshall Plan was to hasten the
reconstruction of the war-torn economies of Western Europe: not only
because this was a good thing in itself, and not only because it would
serve American interests, but also because it could help eliminate the
grievances on which communism fed.
Committee
on the Present
Danger-- Dedicated to Winning the War on Terrorism: "The
Committee on the Present Danger is dedicated to winning the global war
on terrorism. We are a bipartisan organization from the policy,
political, academic, business and professional communities committed to
resisting and defeating terrorist organizations, ending collusion
between rogue regimes and terrorists, and supporting reform in regions
that threaten to export terror."
Alexandre
Kojeve,
"Outline of a French Foreign Policy, August 27, 1945" Policy
Review Online, Hoover Institute, Stanford University,
August/September 2004:
Editor’s
note: In the aftermath of World War II, the philosopher Alexandre Kojčve
presented the French government his “Outline of a Doctrine of French
Policy,” a document that remains today of scholarly, historical,
philosophical, and—perhaps most startlingly—contemporary interest.
This unabridged translation marks its first appearance in English. It
was translated from the French by Erik de Vries, who recently
completed his doctoral dissertation, “A Kojčvean Citizenship Model
for the European Union,” at Carleton University and now works as a
policy analyst for the Canadian government. An interpretive essay by
Robert Howse begins on page
41.
Elizabeth
Kilbride, "Who do our elected officials represent in Washington?
Not the American People!" Project
American Freedom, July 2004:
On
a daily basis legislation is enacted by our elected officials who have
never read the entire piece of legislation because their staffers have
read the bill and put together an issue paper for the representatives.
You have to understand that if the elected individual read every word,
nothing would ever get done in this city. In just about every piece of
legislation there is always something thrown in that will ultimately
save a special-interest program or in recent bills something that will
destroy yet another piece of our constitutional rights. That’s where
the problems come in, special-interest issues that are ultimately
destroying our way of life and our freedoms. When voters voice their
opinion or ask for help, usually they go unheard! WHY? (continued)
Page last updated
April 25, 2006
|
