Speeches, Public Comments and Analyses

George W Bush, President
Press Conference
March 16, 2005

Note: Those portions on matters other than Social Security have been omitted

BUSH: Thank you for giving me a chance to come by and say hello.

I'm preparing for my trip out of town for Easter week, and thought I'd share some thoughts with you and answer some questions.

I am looking forward to continuing my dialogue with the people on Social Security. It's important for the American people to understand that I believe the Social Security system has worked well, that Franklin Roosevelt did a positive thing when he created the Social Security system, but that I am deeply concerned about the Social Security system for younger Americans.

And I believe we're making progress on convincing the American people of two things: one, nothing will change for seniors -- those who've retired or near retirement; and secondly, that we must work together to make sure the system works for a younger generation of Americans.

That's progress.

I think I told you all earlier that one of my missions in the Social Security debate was to set that issue before the people so that people fully understand why I was addressing it. That was why.

I fully understand some in Washington are saying, "Why would the president bring this up? It's a difficult issue; may cause us to have to make a tough vote. "

I'm making that case to the people and will continue to do so, in Florida on Friday and then we'll head out west from Crawford and then back to Crawford for my meetings with Prime Minister Martin and President Fox.

I urge the members to go out, when they go home, to talk to their constituents, not only about the problem but about solutions.

I urge members to start talking about how we're going to permanently fix Social Security. Members, I hope, would not talk about a Band-Aid solution; I think it's important for them to talk about a permanent fix -- something that will last forever.

I think the voters will appreciate people who come up with constructive suggestions, not statements merely in opposition of some ideas.

…

QUESTION: Mr. President, you say you're making progress in the Social Security debate, yet private accounts is the centerpiece of that plan, something you first campaigned on five years ago and laid before the American people -- remains, according to every measure we have, poll after poll, unpopular with a majority of Americans.

So the question is, do you feel that this is a point in the debate where it's incumbent upon you, and nobody else, to lay out a plan to the American people for how you actually keep Social Security solvent for the long term?

BUSH: First of all, let me -- if I might correct you -- be so bold as to correct you -- I have not laid out a plan yet -- intentionally.

While we agree that "privatization" and "no new payroll taxes" is not a "plan", it's interesting to note that the White House home page headlines its link to section on Social Security "The President's Plan."

I've laid out principles. I've talked about putting all options on the table because I fully understand the administration must work with the Congress to permanently solve Social Security.

While the president repeats that he has "put all options on the table," in fact, he has not. He has specifically taken a rise in the payroll tax and any plan that does not include privatization off the table..

And so one aspect of the debate is: Will we be willing to work together to permanently solve the issue?

Personal accounts do not solve the issue. Personal accounts will make sure that individual workers get a better deal with whatever emerges as a Social Security solution.

And the reason why is because a personal account would enable a worker to -- voluntarily, by the way; this is a voluntary program, you can choose to join or choose not to join. The government's not making you do that. It's your option. And you can decide whether or not you want to put some of your own money aside in a conservative mix in stocks and bonds to earn a better rate of return than that which you would earn -- your money would earn inside the Social Security system.

This is a repeat of a misdirection since Social Security is not a savings program -- it's an inter-generational transfer and insurance program -- and allowing taxpayers to invest on their own will cost something in the neighborhood of $4 trillion dollars in debt that will have to paid back -- or passed on to future generations -- with interest.

And over time, that compounds, grows, and you end up with a nest egg you could call your own.

Not really your own -- part will have to be used to offset the reduction in Social security benefits you will receive (whatever those benefits may be determined to be under a solvent system -- although it's almost inevitable they will have to be lower than projected under the current system) and, if the smaller check you receive from Social Security is less than 120% of poverty level, you will be compelled to use "your own" nest egg to buy an annuity sufficient to guarantee you that 120% minimum. (Those conditions make sense, but it hardly makes that nest egg "your own.")

And so I think it's an interesting idea and one that people ought to discuss to make sure the system works better for an individual worker.

But it's very important for people to understand that the permanent solution will require Congress and the administration working together on a variety of different possibilities.

QUESTION: But, sir, but Democrats made it pretty clear that they're not interested in that; they want you to lay it out. And so, what I'm asking is...

BUSH: I'm sure they do.

First bill on the Hill always is dead on arrival.

I'm interested in coming up with a permanent solution. I'm not interested in playing political games. I'm interested in working with members of both political parties.

QUESTION: Will you say if you're specifically supportive of an income test with the slowing of future benefits? Could that get some kind of bipartisan consensus going?

BUSH: There are some interesting ideas out there. One of the interesting ideas was by this fellow by the -- a Democrat economist named of Pozen. He came to visit the White House. He didn't see me, but came and tossed some interesting ideas out, talking about making sure the system was progressive.

We're open for ideas. And look, I can understand why people say, "Make -- force the president to either negotiate with himself or lay out his own bill. "

I want to work with members of both political parties. And I stood up in front of the Congress and said, "Bring your ideas forward. " And I'm looking forward to people bringing their ideas forward. It's how the process works. And I'm confident we'll get something done

See, the American people want something done. They don't like partisan politics. They don't like people saying, you know, "I'm not going to accept so-and-so's idea because it happens to come from a particular political party. " What they want is people coming together to solve this problem.

…

QUESTION: Sir, on Social Security, what is the time line that you want to see for action by Congress on a bill? And when do you start to get worried about not getting something done this year?

And also, if I can add, would you be willing to drop personal accounts in order to get a bill?

BUSH: Personal accounts are very important for the individuals.

You know, it's interesting, David quoted some kind of poll. There's all kinds of polls. For every poll you quote, I'll quote another one. That's, kind of, the way Washington works is they poll everything.

The one I read the other day said people like the idea of personal accounts.

Actually, it depends on how the question is asked -- people do not "like" the idea of privatized accounts when they learn they will reduce the guaranteed benefit and are mixed when just the issue of risk (without mentioning the offset) is mentioned. One can review a wide variety of the more scientific polls on this issue at PollingReport.Com.

I think people like the idea of being able to take some of their own money -- in other words, government says, "You can decide, " as opposed to "We'll decide for you. " You get to decide, that this is in your interest.

And you get to decide whether you want to set some of your own money aside in an account that'll earn a better rate of return than that which will be earned in the Social Security system. That's an important part of making sure the system works for the individual.

I repeat: Personal accounts do not permanently fix the solution. They make the solution more attractive for the individual worker. And that's important for people to understand, and that's why it's very important for Congress to discuss this issue. In terms of timetables, as quickly as possible, whatever that means.

No, I am going to -- I mean, one of the things that I think is very important for people to understand is that I believe that we have a duty to work on big problems in Washington, D.C.

So I'm going to continue working on this. And it's a -- I guess -- I'm not going to go away on the issue, because the issue's not going to go away.

The longer we wait, the more difficult it is to solve the problem.

And, listen, I fully understand this is a difficult issue. Otherwise, it would have been solved a long time ago.

And I understand some members don't -- you know, view this as a tough vote -- you know, "Why'd you bring it up? It's a tough vote. "

And this is not the way I think. I think we have a duty, I truly do.

Now's the time to get this solved.

I remember 1983 -- you know, we got a 75-year solution.

It wasn't a 75-year solution that they came up with, it was -- I liked the spirit of people coming together from both parties to sit down and see if they couldn't solve the immediate problem.

But it wasn't a 75-year solution, because we're talking about it now.

And in 2018 the situation starts to get worse because more money is coming into the system -- more money is going out of the system than coming in.

Actually, when one understands that the "75 year solution" was expected to keep SS solvent for 75 years -- and SS is expected to remain solvent until roughly 2050 (SSA says a bit shorter, the CBO says a bit longer) that's 67 years -- not bad for predictions made under uncertainty. We should also note that the use of 2018 -- when the system is projected to start drawing down on the fund balance --is misleading as well. Drawing down of the reserves was part of the plan. It was never intended to create a enormous slush fund for ever.

You know, one thing about Social Security -- sorry to blow on here, but now that you asked -- a lot of people in America think there is a trust. Your money goes in, the government holds it, and then the government gives your money back when you retire.

That's just not the way it works. And it's important for the American citizens to understand it's a pay-as-you-go system.

And right now, we're paying for a lot of programs other than Social Security with the payroll tax coming in, thereby leaving a pile of IOUs.

And part of why I think a personal account is an attractive option for a younger worker is that there would be real assets in the system at this point in time.

I also will continue reminding people when it comes to personal accounts that the system oftentimes doesn't work for a widow. You know, if a wage earner dies prior to 62, there are no spousal benefits available until 62.

If both spouses work, the spouse that survives will get the higher of his or her Social Security benefits or the death benefits, but not both.

In other words, somebody's contribution in the system just goes away. And a personal account will enable somebody to leave behind an asset base to whomever he or she chooses.

……

QUESTION: Mr. President, back to Social Security if I may, you said right at the top today that you urge members of Congress to go out and talk about the problem with their constituents.

But...

BUSH: No, about solutions to the problem.

QUESTION: But also talk about solutions.

BUSH: Yes.

QUESTION: And it's that part that I want to ask about. Aren't you asking them to do something that you really haven't?

BUSH: No, I'm interested in -- first of all, I have laid out, in the State of the Union address -- I haven't looked at all previous State of the Union addresses, but I think I'm the first president ever to say all options are on the table and named a series of options.

I think. Now, maybe somebody could go back and find out. If you've got some idle time on your hand you might want to go read previous State of the Union address and see if that's true.

I don't believe a member should go write a bill, but I do believe a member should start discussing ideas with constituencies about how to solve the problem, as opposed to blocking ideas, to say, "Here are some ideas, " and come back and present them.

That's what's happening, by the way. There's a lot of members are talking about different concepts. I've called a lot of them into the White House compound. I've listened to them. There's a variety of ideas. And that's positive. I view that as a positive sign that members of Congress, one, take the problem seriously.

I thought it was helpful yesterday when the United States Senate said, you know, that Social Security is a serious problem that requires a permanent solution.

And now it's time for people, when they get back from Easter, having talked to different constituency groups, to come back and sit down and start sharing ideas about how to move the process forward.

And my pledge is that I will not take somebody's idea and use it as a political weapon against them.

Of course not -- he'll let Progress for America (remember "AARP hates soldiers and loves gay marriage"?) do it, instead...

That's what's changed in this debate.

In other words, the Social Security, they used to call it the third rail of American politics, because when you talked about it, you got singed at the minimum. And it's now time to talk about it in a serious way, to come up with a permanent solution.