MyDD :: Bush: Social Security Will Be Bankrupt in 1988

Bush: Social Security Will Be Bankrupt in 1988

by Chris Bowers, Wed Jan 26, 2005 at 12:30:37 PM EST

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."

From the Texas Observer in 1999 concerning Bush's failed 1978 campaign:

According to Gary Ott, who was then a reporter for the Plainview Daily Herald, Bush stopped by the paper's little office "maybe five or six times. He'd sit down at my desk; he was a fun guy. He was very outgoing, very friendly, and we would argue politics since I was a liberal. We'd argue over Carter policies." Bush criticized energy policy, federal land use policy, subsidized housing, and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration ("a misuse of power," he said), and he warned that Social Security would go bust in ten years unless people were given a chance to invest the money themselves."

Back then, he was completely wrong. Now, he is just lying.

Tags: Money (all tags)

Permalink :: 15 Comments :: Post a Comment

06 (none / 0)

AP's Espo reports, an NRCC poll obtained by the AP shows GOPers "face a significant challenge in persuading near-retirees to support" Bush's Social Security plans, and a "confidential polling memo" cautions House GOPers to "tread carefully" on the issue. According to the summary "presented to top House GOP lawmakers" on 1/25, young workers "strongly support" the Bush plan and "seniors oppose it," while those between 55-64 are "evenly split." When the "near-retirees are exposed to a series of common arguments for and against the proposal," their "sentiment swings against personal accounts" From the memo: "It is important to consider this data in the context of the 2006 midterm elections. Voters 55 of age or older will make up fully 40 percent of the vote."

by Jerome Armstrong on Wed Jan 26, 2005 at 12:43:31 PM EST

Re: 06 (none / 0)

I think sometimes that one of the reasons they are trying this so early in the two-year cycle is that, inc ase it fails, there will be as fw reprecussions as possible in 2006. One strategy we could use to counter this is to run ads in vulnerable GOP disricts to keep incumbent unfavorables high.

by Chris Bowers on Wed Jan 26, 2005 at 12:54:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Very Insightful (none / 0)

I guess we have it really good in America. No one has anything new to complain about. When I looked at the 1992 debates, people were using the same, tired old rhetoric as we have today. Consider national health care; we haven't had it and we've done all right. The welfare state hasn't led to "the road to serfdom" either.

by Paul Goodman on Wed Jan 26, 2005 at 01:02:18 PM EST

Re: Very Insightful (none / 0)

"Consider national health care; we haven't had it and we've done all right."

You've done all right, perhaps. Millions more have not. We pay nearly twice as much for the highest infant mortality rates and some of the lowest life-expectancy rates. Even if you don't give a shit about people dying, it's a terrible drag on our economy. If that's really "all right," I would hate to see what "bad" looks like.

by Paul Rosenberg on Wed Jan 26, 2005 at 02:43:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Not Unusual (none / 0)

There's a passage in Social Security and It's Enemies (I seem to have misplaced my copy) which describes Reagan saying similar things back in the early 60s. It was apparently something that he slipped into "the speech" from time to time. Only I believe that Reagan said Social Security was already bankrupt.

This is a standard piece of far-right ideology that used to be confined to about 20% of the GOP electorate at most. And the only ones really promoting it were folks like the NAM. The people who are buying into it now have not embraced the values and other positions of that fringe--as can be seen by looking at time series of polls at the General Social Survey and elsewhere. Rather, what we have is an enormous propaganda/political apparatus of the far right.

Their argument is that Bush isn't Hitler. He's von Hindenberg. Everything is under control. They are so wrong. Anyone who can read long-term budget projections knows this. They are so, so wrong.

by Paul Rosenberg on Wed Jan 26, 2005 at 01:12:23 PM EST

Good work (none / 0)

Showing he predicted it was going under in 88 has legs.

Now if we only had a TV commercial...

by donkeykong on Wed Jan 26, 2005 at 02:11:03 PM EST

GOP political gossip sheet (none / 0)

I don't know if any of you have searched for a GOP political gossip sheet, but I want to share the American Spectator's "Prowler" feature -- a daily grouping of notes has generally really high quality GOP gossip. And please share any others you've found.

Today's Prowler shares that Arlen Specter's hiring of a NAACP lawyer in his judiciary committee staff is the subject of today's Wednesday meeting hosted by Grover Norquist. In addition to hiring a NAACP guy, Specter has hired a trial lawyer to help him with "broad" oversight of his chairmanship of the Judiciary commitee.

Now, I'm not one to get all hot in the pants about what a "moderate" GOP Senator did that could be perceived as helping the Democrats... that's just today's news. But the cool thing you get with the Prowler is real internal GOP DC dialogue. Where else can you find that?

Also when I was making clips at the Dean campaign, I thought its DC gossip about the Democratic prez campaigns was as good as The Note, Early Bird or any others.

by janfrel on Wed Jan 26, 2005 at 02:19:16 PM EST

So What Is This Doing Here As A Comment? (none / 0)

This should be its own diary.

by Paul Rosenberg on Wed Jan 26, 2005 at 02:39:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Well... (none / 0)

This might not be the best line of attack -- I think SS did go insolvent in 1982. They increased the payroll tax and raised the retirement age . . .

by pwj on Wed Jan 26, 2005 at 03:08:01 PM EST

Re: Well... (none / 0)

Of course. We needed tax hikes and benefit rollbacks to keep the program going. (Which will certainly be needed again in the future.)

Bush declaring Social Security to be in trouble in the 1970s shows good foresight, not bad.

by Mr Moderate on Wed Jan 26, 2005 at 03:58:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

social security will be bushes undoing (none / 0)

if bush proceeds with this social security plan he has, it will be his undoing.most of the people in this country are not all that concerned about it and are more concerned with straightening out iraq.
the democrats better get a good ad agency and explain to america that social security is in no danger right now. we need to figure out a way to make it better. but we need to show how it is not a crisis.we ought to just keep talking about the surplus bush has blown giving it away to his rich buddies!

by temple1954 on Wed Jan 26, 2005 at 06:04:43 PM EST

Privitization will fail. (none / 0)

Just counting down the days before this privitization initiative is shelved and thrown back into the closet because it doesn't have a chance in hell of passing.

Everyone has heard this chicken little story every decade it seems. SS is projected to stay solvent until 2046. I'm not exactly concerned. Doubt I'll live that long anyway.

There have always been privatization. It's called the bonds and stocks. These people need to exercise some saving discipline and prepare for their future retirement. Only a fool relies on SS alone.

http://operationyellowelephant.blogspot.com/

by Vote Hillary 2008 on Wed Jan 26, 2005 at 10:16:09 PM EST

Social Security: fact check USA Today (none / 0)

In today's USA Today (p.4A), there is a side bar in reference to Bush's plans for social security:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2005-01-26-bush-usat_x.htm

The program now runs a surplus, raising more in taxes than it pays in benefits. By the middle of the century -- 2042 says the Social Security Administration, 2052 says the Congressional Budget Office -- benefits would deplete reserves. Even so, the system wouldn't be out of funds.

After that point, Social Security would be unable to pay full benefits. But by law, it would continue to issue benefit checks to the extent that incoming revenue from payroll taxes allows. With reserves gone, Social Security would be on a cash accounting basis, able to pay out only what it collects in a given year.

Douglas Holtz-Eakin, director of the Congressional Budget Office, estimates that with annual revenue, Social Security would be able to pay about 80% of scheduled benefits.

David Walker, comptroller general of the United States, puts it this way: "Does Social Security have a financing problem? Yes. Will Social Security ever go bust? No."

By William M. Welch

It is good to see that USA TODAY is willing/able to show the fact and the fiction.

by Marie Smith on Thu Jan 27, 2005 at 10:18:10 AM EST

A fun guy? (none / 0)

Virtually every comment you see about the young Bush states something along the lines that he was charming. This piece uses the phrases a fun guy, outgoing, etc. Even in the 2000 election you saw plenty of this. Is this something that he only can show one on one or in very small groups? The Bush I see and have always seen for the last 5 or 6 years is NOT charming. He's a bully with a bad temper, a habit of picking on weaker people, and a haor-trigger temper that refuses to acknowledge that he has been and remains a child of extroadinary privillege rather than extroadinary ability.

What's up with this? Why does the media always shill for this dude? It's not, mostly the payoffs and it can't be the widespread contempt he shows for them? These are the folks that BURIED Al Gore as a serial liar when the were travelling daily with the clown prince of darkness. I don't see it? Course I didn't respond to Regan;s supposed super charm again. What the hell was so great about there you go again or I paid for this microphone. Another damned bully picking on the old and the weak and laughing about it.

Maybe our mantra should be, when you hear about CHARM grab your wallets and run for the hills.

by David Kowalski on Thu Jan 27, 2005 at 10:25:46 AM EST

The sad thing is... (none / 0)

Chris,

I honestly don't think he is lying. I think he honestly believes what he says. Of course what he says is 100% wrong. But it scares me as I think Bush is so far into his own delusion he believes every false hood stated is the gospel. Reagan had alzheimers...what is W's excuse.

Buckle your seatbelts, we are in for Mr. Toad's wild ride.

http://www.imvotingrepublican.com/ McCain Sucks!

by yitbos96bb on Thu Jan 27, 2005 at 01:32:04 PM EST

You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.