The latest stop on Bush’s Social Security campaign was before an adoring crowd in New Jersey on Friday, where the president played up the virtues of his private accounts, which, according to every word we’ve heard from the White House, would be financed through payroll taxes and replace the existing Social Security system.
With that in mind, if someone knows what this means, I’d sure love to hear about it.
“This is a retirement account we’re talking about. But it’s your money, and the interest off that money goes to supplement the Social Security check that you’re going to get from the federal government. See, personal accounts is an add-on to that which the government is going to pay you. It doesn’t replace the Social Security system. It is a part of making — getting a better rate of return, though, so — to come closer to the promises made. That’s important to know.” (emphasis added)
Just so we’re clear, there’s been ample talk about these “add-on accounts,” whereby the existing Social Security system remains in tact, but private accounts would be added to Social Security. The money for these accounts would not be financed by payroll taxes and, as such, wouldn’t come out of the Social Security system.
The policy debate, which is already well underway, could shift into a discussion about the merits of add-on accounts once the White House drops Bush’s privatization scheme, but we’re clearly not there yet. (Even once we do reach that point, Paul Krugman makes a good case that we shouldn’t go for the add-ons anyway.)
All of this, therefore, leads one to wonder what in the world Bush was talking about in New Jersey.
As the invaluable Dan Froomkin noted today, White House counselor Dan Bartlett tried to explain Bush’s remarks on “Fox News Sunday” but ended up in an incoherent mess.
So, consider the options. Bush either a) still doesn’t know what he’s talking about; b) heard that add-on accounts are more popular than his scheme so he’s hoping to confuse people; or c) in a dramatic reversal, he’s dropped his own approach to embrace a more politically salient plan.
According to the Washington Post’s Mike Allen, it sure sounds like the first option.
“Well, the president on Friday described private and personal accounts as an add-on to Social Security, something extra. And that set off a lot of bells because Democrats said either he’s being deceptive or he’s completely changed his negotiating position. I checked on this. The White House says he has not changed anything. They said it’s just how it came out and you won’t hear that again.”
This is what happens when Bush strays from his script. When he’s reading remarks others have written for him, he’s fine; it doesn’t require him to give his words a lot of thought. But as soon as he’s on his own, Bush ends up with bizarre concepts that we “won’t hear again” because they don’t make any sense.
Bush has been talking about privatization for 27 years. Isn’t it time he learned what he’s talking about?