The Logic of Contradiction in Bush’s Phase Out

First things first-- Bush’s annual primetime press conference. Does anyone else find it alarming that when the President of the United States agrees to do a press conference it becomes breaking news not only on cable but also network television? The event of a liberal democracy opening itself up to the public has become a rarity indeed. Like I said earlier, I think the president was well prepared for his stint with the media. But I also don’t think anything of substance came from his two chosen subjects of which to speak about: Social Security phase-out and the energy bill.

Luckily the public is not buying President Bush’s plan to phase-out Social Security. Again Bush said he would not negotiate the specifics of his so-called plan. And again he said that private accounts were a must for any revisions to Social Security. First of all, that is not a plan. A plan includes “specifics.” To say that something needs to change is not proposing a plan. With that logic, the Democrats agreeing that changes need to be made to the system but without privatized accounts, is also a plan, then. No specifics involved in that notion either.

So, saying that Democrats do not have a plan and at least the Republicans do is incorrect. Or to say that Republicans have a plan is to agree that the Democrats do as well.

Bush also made a couple of flip-flops during his hour-long ceremony. Bush said again that the Social Security trust fund would be bankrupt in 2041, which goes against his “crisis” comments of a few weeks ago and against his campaign speeches of the 70s. That Social Security will be bankrupt in 2041 is simply not true. According to the Congressional Budget Office, in the year 2041 the program, if left untouched, will be able to provide 70% of the benefits defined today. That is not bankruptcy like Bush says. It’s a problem, but far from being bankrupt.

If the president wants to modify Social Security why can’t he at least be honest about the discussion?

Furthermore, while trying to convince those who oppose his phase-out, Bush said that his privatization plans could be backed up by the full faith of Treasury notes. But, just a week earlier during one of his “60 stops in 60 days” campaign to gain support for phasing-out Social Security (which failed miserably) Bush said that those same Treasury notes- which he wants people to use for their private accounts- when they are held in the Social Security Trust Fund are “worthless IOU’s.” That is a complete contradiction. And seemingly, only very few picked up on it.

So, when those very same Treasury notes are in the Social Security Trust Fund, they are worthless and will result in bankruptcy, but when people use them to fill their privatized accounts they are backed up by the full faith and credit of the US government. Doesn’t make sense to me.

Numerous times Bush looked directly at the camera and reassured senior citizens that they would get their check every month. Future senior citizens, however, would be the ones receiving a reduction in their monthly checks and benefits. According to the so-called Bush plan, Social Security should be revised to benefit those who need it most. The most well off Americans (those making $22,000 or more) will receive fewer benefits from the program, because they are seemingly the ones who need it less.

According to that logic, if that were the case the program would certainly be revamped into a welfare program, which makes no sense to me at all because Republicans routinely refer to Social Security as a welfare program anyways and that is the very reason they want it dismantled. And on top of all that reasoning, who amongst us that makes $22,000/year considers themselves well off? I’m waiting for the logic on this one.

Bush's plans to dismantle Social Security are failing. Thankfully the public is recognizing his contradictions and dishonesty. Unfortunately, Bush hasn't given up the fight, which helps explain his 46% approval rating.

In essence, Social Security is a plan for the future, not a welfare program, but would be if Bush gets his way. And according to the situation in Iraq, Bush knows nothing about planning.

The greatest contradiction of all is that George W. Bush is greatly in debt to his families wealth. If anything the social security that his family provided all his life has nothing to do with his own responsiveness to his work or planning for the future. For him to tell me that people should be more responsible and own up to their future, and that people who make more than $22,000/year are well off, is a joke.

I wonder if Bush would be willing to phase-out his family's wealth. Or if his un-employed daughters would be willing to not partake in their families social security program.

We all aren't a fortunate son.