Off-message on Social Security, again

Bush’s failures in making his Social Security pitch include a variety of astounding elements, but for me the most surprising is the White House’s inability to craft a clear, consistent message. These guys eat, sleep, and breathe message discipline, but on the president’s signature domestic policy goal, they can’t keep their pitch on track.

On different days, for example, we’ll hear competing messages on whether payroll tax increases could be part of Bush’s plan. Indeed, on different days, we’ll hear competing messages about whether Bush even has a plan.

Yesterday, the inconsistencies reached an almost silly level with John Snow.

U.S. Treasury Secretary John Snow said on Wednesday he was confused by resistance to the Bush administration’s plans to overhaul the Social Security system, while protesters blasted the proposed private retirement accounts during his stop in Montana.

Snow, in remarks to the Chamber of Commerce in Bozeman, said he believed personal accounts for young workers would be cost-free for the existing Social Security system and would not affect benefits to retirees or near-retirees.

Cost-free? That’s the opposite of what Dick Cheney argued last month.

Vice President Cheney acknowledged yesterday that the federal government would need to borrow trillions of dollars over the next few decades to cover the cost of the personal retirement accounts at the heart of President Bush’s plan to restructure Social Security.

Appearing on “Fox News Sunday,” Cheney said the government would have to borrow $754 billion over the next 10 years, and conceded that the price tag would involve borrowing trillions of dollars more in subsequent decades. “That’s right. Trillions more after that,” Cheney said in response to a question.

It’s not that complicated. Even I know the spin — and I hate the idea. The Bush message is that his approach will cost trillions, but it would cost less in the long run. Or maybe that it will cost trillions, but it’s worth it to give workers private accounts. The idea that privatization would be cost-free is not only ridiculous, it’s not even part of the White House’s pitch.

Bush keeps kvetching that Dems don’t want to join him at the negotiating table. Given the past couple of months, it seems more important to get Bush’s staff and cabinet together for a discussion first. They can get their act together; then we’ll talk.

Supporters of Bush claim that he should be admired for addressing a problem before it becomes a problem. There are three huge issues I have with the ‘Bush is fixing Social Security’ group.

1. A much larger problem is Medicare/Medicaid but rather than address the problem he compounded it by codifying the number one cost issue into law. That being perscription drug costs. Not only can’t HHS use the buying power of millions of American’s to reduce drug costs but Bush continues to support drug companies by making the reimportation of drugs illegal. Bush is not interested in fixing entitlement programs.

2. Economic projections 40 years into the future are worthless garbage. In 1999 economists couldn’t even predict what would happen in 2000.

3. Bush’s fix doesn’t actually fix Social Security. Ask anyone who supports it how it will fix Social Security. It doesn’t. It’s a gift for Wall Street.

  • If Bush is open to all ideas, why are people who may have differing views routinely escorted out of his town hall meetings?

    People are criticized for not supporting Bush’s plan, but when his plan is criticized, it’s suddenly not a plan – He’s waiting for ‘input’

    Now, it’s the people who dislike Bush’s non-plan, who are obstructing the plan by not offering a plan. It’s enough to make youe head spin – and that’s before the arithmetic sets in.

  • Pay attention to what Snow actually said yesterday, “It will be cost-free FOR THE EXISTING SOCIAL SECURITY SYSTEM”. I add the CAPS to highlight the attempted Snow job (pun intended). Snow is NOT saying there will be no cost; he is merely saying that it will not be charged to the existing S.S. system.

    Which leads to two questions: (a) Will there be a charge to the general budget, or off the budget, or what? Clearly, there will be transition cost, similar in nature to the costs absorbed by the government (taxpayers) when the system was first implemented in 1936 to cover those eligible for immediate benefits that had not made any (or few) contributions to a system that was theretofore nonexistant. (b) Will the “existing S.S. system” soon no longer be in existence? Will it forever be changed or destroyed, from a social insurance program to a government run 401(k)? If so, then of course the cost will be to the “new” system since by then the “existing S.S. sytem” is no long in existence!

    Just another way of telling a lie, just like Josh Marshall describes those Republicans using doublespeak and misdirection to give the impression they are against privatization when in fact they are collaborating with Bush. Remember recently when Bush used the phrase “add-on accounts” instead of a “carve-out”? He used the same talking points, but suddenly used the “add-on” phrase; had he given up on carve-outs? Of course not, as his White House spokespeople made clear that evening.

    Just more bait-and-switch bullshit … also known as a Snow job!!

  • Add trillions to an already out of control deficit and not fix the long term solvency of social security, what sane person would be for that? I can’t think of one.

  • Comments are closed.