Reform is right thing to do, even if opinion polls disagree
One of the first policy sessions I sat in concerned Social Security reform. Virtually every staff member in the room was advising Bush to stay away from the subject.
One staff member in the room said, "This issue polls terribly." There were a few things you could do to tick Bush off more than make an argument based solely on opinion polls.
In that meeting, Governor Bush pounded the table. "Damn it, this is the right thing to do," he said, and asked us to come up with a specific proposal.
He told the team, "It's your job to give me the best advice on what the right policy is. It's my job to figure out how to sell it." I agreed with that proposition: Substantive policy should not be derived by polling.
Spent political capital on Soc.Sec. restructuring proposal
When it came to economic issues, Bush in 2005 devoted a big measure of his political capital to a far-reaching proposal to restructure Social Security.
This was a goal many conservative activists favored, but it was also one that Bush seemingly cold not achieve without at least some Democratic support.
In angling for this support, Bush deferred other conservative goals, particularly in tax policy, without in the end finding a formula to win passage of Social Security reform.
This was an instance of pursuing a conservative-backed policy goal that seemed to require reducing polarization as a condition of success. Success was not achieved.
OpEd: burdened entitlement system with $7T in new debt
Republicans under George W. Bush took a $150 billion surplus and turned it into a $1 trillion deficit. The GOP also doubled the national debt, presided over a staggering trade deficit, allowed the dollar to collapse, passed massive tax cuts,
burdened a crippled entitlement system with $7 trillion in new debt, and allowed domestic spending to grow at its fastest rate since the Great Society.
Despite my personal affection for the man, the sad truth is that President Bush spent American into debt, tore apart its conservative movement, and left his own political party shattered.
No president had attempted to alter the Social Security system since 1983. But I felt the issue was less politically dangerous than in the past, in part because Bush had twice won the presidency while explicitly promising to modernize Social Security.
Bush did what political leaders are constantly faulted for avoiding: taking on hard, politically risky tasks. He strove to make responsible changes now to forestall less wrenching ones later.
In his 2005 State of the Union speech, calling Social
Security "a great moral success of the 20th century," Bush said, "we must honor its great purposes in this new century. The system, however, on its current path, is headed toward bankruptcy. And so we must join together to strengthen and save Social
Security." As was his habit, Bush placed all his chips on the table. He called for private accounts for individual workers. Bush proposed giving younger workers the option of directing some of their Social Security tax payments into a personal account.
2003: Progressive indexing would eliminate 2/3 of shortfall
The president believed that younger workers should be able to set it aside in their own retirement accounts. On April 28, 2005, in another effort to jump-start the debate, Bush embraced a proposal that would have protected low-wage workers and cut Social
Security's projected shortfall. The idea, "progressive indexing," was proposed by a Democrat: Social Security benefits are small, but they do increase over time based on a formula that takes into account both inflation and an index that averages the
national increase in wages. Progressive indexing keeps that formula for the bottom 30% of wage earners, but for top-tier earners calculate benefit increases using inflation only. Everyone would get a Social Security check equal to or greater in
purchasing power than they would receive today, but low-wage earners would receive the more generous benefit increases the country could not afford for everyone. This one change would have eliminated roughly two-thirds of the Social Security shortfall.
The boldest move we made was to talk openly about reforming Social Security. Before 2000, it was an iron law of politics that even though Social Security was going broke, Republicans couldn't talk about reform and win. Bush wondered what the point was of
being for reform if you couldn't talk about it. He believed that voters were now much further along than elected officials. Voters knew Social Security was careening toward insolvency, and he believed they would reward candidates who confronted that.
Source: Courage and Consequence, by Karl Rove, p.160
, Mar 9, 2010
Create a bipartisan commission to examine Social Security
Congress did not act last year on my proposal to save Social Security. Yet the rising cost of entitlements is a problem that is not going away. And every year we fail to act, the situation gets worse. So tonight, I ask you to join me in
creating a commission to examine the full impact of baby boom retirements on Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. This commission should include members of Congress of both parties and offer bipartisan answers.
Source: 2006 State of the Union Address
, Jan 31, 2006
Overhaul Social Security because it's unfair to black people
Social Security needed to be overhauled, the President said, because it was unfair to black people. Bush laid out the problem at a staged "Conversation on Social Security Reform."
A questioner noted, "The average African-American male life expectancy
is 69. But if the age is going to go to 67, you do the math. That's 2 years." The numbers came from a 1998 report by the extremely untrustworthy Heritage Foundation. The study assumed that every African-American man would live to EXACTLY 69 years of age,
and then drop dead.
But Heritage ignored the fact that black men who reach 67 have a life expectancy of 79. That doesn't mean that they ALL die at 79. It's just an average. On average, black male retirees will receive Social Security benefits for
12 years--not 2.
In 2003, the nonpartisan Government Accountability Office found that "in the aggregate, blacks and Hispanics have higher disability rates and lower lifetime earnings, and thus receive greater benefits relative to taxes than whites."
FactCheck: System may pay less, but will not go bankrupt
The President painted a dire picture of Social Security’s finances, saying “The system.is headed toward bankruptcy.”
“Bankruptcy” is a scary term that Democrats have used too, when it suited them, but it could easily give the wrong idea.
Nobody is predicting that Social Security will go out of business the way a bankrupt business does. It would continue to pay benefits -- just not as many.
The President projects that the system’s trust fund will be depleted in 2042.
After that, the system would have legal authority to pay only 73 percent of currently promised benefits -- and that figure would decline each year after, reaching 68 percent in the year 2075. The Congressional Budget Office doesn’t project trust-fund
depletion until a decade later, in 2052, and figures that the benefits cuts wouldn’t be so severe, a reduction to 78% of promised benefits. But either way, even a “bankrupt” system would continue to provide most of what’s promised currently.
Social Security system is headed toward bankruptcy
One of America’s most important institutions, a symbol of the trust between generations, is also in need of wise & effective reform. Social Security was a great moral success of the 20th century, and we must honor its great purposes in this new century.
The system, however, on its current path, is headed toward bankruptcy, and so we must join together to strengthen & save Social Security.
Today, more than 45 million Americans receive Social Security benefits, and millions more are nearing retirement.
And for them, the system is strong and fiscally sound. I have a message for every American who is 55 or older: Do not let anyone mislead you. For you, the Social Security system will not change in any way.
In 2018, Social Security will be paying out
more than it takes in. And every year afterward will bring a new shortfall, bigger than the year before. By 2033, the annual shortfall would be more than $300 billion. By the year 2042, the entire system would be exhausted and bankrupt.
Bush believes that we need to explore new ways to ensure that Social Security remains strong and financially secure for America’s children and grandchildren. He formed a bipartisan Commission to review Social Security and recommend reforms to put the
system on sound financial ground. He has repeatedly stressed the need for modernization of the Social Security System. Bush has also proposed solutions to strengthen pension plans and enhance retirement security for all Americans.
Source: 2004 Presidential website, georgewbush.com
, Aug 29, 2003
Strengthen women’s retirement via catch up contributions
[Bush’s plan] would allow for “catch up” contributions to retirement plans, helping millions of American women who took time out from the work force to care for dependent family members. Bush’s Commission recommended improving the treatment of women
through Social Security, via the creation of property rights in a personal account for every woman who experiences a divorce, expanded benefits for widows, and new “anti-poverty” benefit guarantees that would benefit women.
Source: 2004 Presidential website, georgewbush.com
, Aug 29, 2003
Forms presidential commission to reform Social Security
Seven years from now, the baby boom generation will begin to claim Social Security benefits. Social Security is not prepared to fully fund their retirement. Without reform, this country will one day awaken to a stark choice: either a drastic rise in
payroll taxes, or a radical cut in retirement benefits. There’s a better way. This spring I will form a presidential commission to reform Social Security. The commission will make its recommendations by next fall. Reform should be based on these
It must preserve the benefits of all current retirees and those nearing retirement.
It must return Social Security to sound financial footing.
And it must offer personal savings accounts to younger workers who want them.
Social Security now offers workers a return of less than 2% on the money they pay into the system. To save the system, we must increase that by allowing younger workers to make safe, sound investments that yield a higher rate of return.
Source: Message to Congress (Budget outline)
, Feb 27, 2001
Don’t treat Social Security like it’s a federal program
You know what else has changed on this issue? There are thousands of younger workers who understand that if our government does not think differently, they either are going to have to pay huge payroll tax increases or have major
reductions in benefits. It doesn’t have to be that way. We trust individual workers, and so our plan says we’re going to keep the promise to our seniors. But we’ll allow younger workers at their choice to invest some of their own money
in the private markets to get a better rate of return so that the Social Security promise will be kept.
And this frightens some in Washington. Because they want the federal government controlling the Social Security like it’s
some kind of federal program. We understand differently though. You see, it’s your money not the government’s money.
Source: Speech in St. Charles, MO
, Nov 2, 2000
Set aside $2.4T for seniors as well as younger workers
I’m going to set aside $2.4 trillion of Social Security surplus. That’s $2.4 trillion more in payroll taxes than we owe the seniors, which means there is a really interesting opportunity to make sure we not only fulfill the promises to the seniors but
we have a social security system that is hopeful for younger workers. We must let younger workers take a portion of their payroll taxes and put it in the marketplace. The agents of the status quo have misread the people.
Source: Speech in Florida
, Oct 26, 2000
Blueprint: Maintain retiree benefits; young get more options
The Bush plan will:
Guarantee the current level of benefits for seniors. No change in benefits for those who are retired or nearing retirement.
Allow the choice of personal savings accounts.Allow
younger workers to build real savings by voluntarily setting aside a portion of their payroll tax into a personal savings account.
“Lock-box” the Social Security surplus.
Rule out any Social Security tax increases.
Source: Blueprint for the Middle Class
, Sep 17, 2000
Open questions: transition costs & bad investors bailouts
Allow investing an unspecified amount of payroll taxes in the stock market.
Does not preclude decreasing guaranteed benefits for future retirees.
Use the federal budget surplus
to pay down the debt and use the interest saved to keep Social Security solvent.
Subsidized retirement savings plan open to families earning up to $100,000 a year.
government bail out people who make poor investment decisions?
What about the costs of making the transition to & then maintaining the accounts?
If some payroll taxes are diverted to private accounts, how will the government make up the difference
for current retirees?
What if future administrations don’t display the kind of fiscal discipline Gore’s plan requires?
What if the projections of budget surplus money to pay down the debt doesn’t come true?
Maintain basics of government’s “most successful program”
Social security is the single most successful program in government history. [But] within two decades, there simply won’t be enough younger workers to pay the benefits earned by the old. For those on social security-or close to
receiving it-nothing will change. In my economic plan, more than $2 trillion of the federal surplus is locked away for social security. For years, politicians have dipped into the trust fund to pay for more spending. And I will stop it.
Source: Speech in Rancho Cucamonga, in “Renewing America’s Purpose”
, May 15, 2000
No government investment in private stocks or bonds
Pledged to fulfill the solemn commitment of Social Security; no reduction in benefits for retirees or near retirees
Called for dedicating all Social Security money to Social Security (lock box)
Opposes any tax increase for Social Security
Supports making personal retirement accounts part of Social Security reform
Opposes government investment in private stocks or bonds
Bush said he would consider raising the retirement age for Social Security benefits as a way to help extend the life of the ailing program.
Source: CNN.com, “GOP Arizona Debates”
, Nov 22, 1999
George W. Bush on Privatization
Spent political capital addressing "third rail"
The day after Kerry conceded, a reporter asked if I felt "more free." I thought about the ambitious agenda I had outlines over the past year. "Let me out it to you this way," I said. "I earned capital in the campaign, political capital, and now I intend
to spend it."
For as long as I can remember, Social Security has been the third rail of American politics. Grab ahold of it, and you're toast. In 2005, I did more than touch the third rail. I hugged it. I did so for one reason: It is unfair to make a
generation of young people pay into a system that is going broke.
For someone looking to take on big issues, it didn't get much bigger than reforming Social Security. I decided there was no better time to launch the effort than when I was fresh off reelection.
Personal accounts reduce racial disparity of retirement
[During my 2005 trip] to a Nissan auto plant in Mississippi, many in the audience were African American workers. I asked how many had money invested in a 401(k). Almost every hand in the room shot up. I loved the idea of people who had not traditionally
owned assets having a nest egg they could call their own. I also thought about how much more was possible. Social Security was especially unfair to African Americans. Because their life expectancy was shorter, black workers received an average of $21,000
less in benefits than whites of comparable income levels. Personal accounts, which could be passed along to the next generation, would go a long way toward reducing that disparity.
Democratic leaders alleged I wanted to "privatize" Social Security.
That was obviously poll-tested language designed to scare people. It wasn't true. My plan saved Social Security, modernized Social Security, and gave Americans the opportunity to own a piece of their Social Security. It did not privatize Social Security.
OpEd: Tried to institute personal accounts; but AARP won
Our government promised all seniors retirement income and health care, and now the cost of Social Security and Medicare is threatening to bankrupt our nation. Senior groups like the
AARP are at the forefront promoting socialist solutions to fulfilling our promises to seniors.
When President George W. Bush attempted to reform Social Security with personally owned accounts (a freedom concept), the
AARP ran national television ads to frighten seniors that these accounts were "risky." Remarkably they convinced seniors and the majority of Americans that it was safer to spend Social Security taxes than to save them (the federal government now spend
every dime of Social Security taxes). The AARP's motives are questionable; they sell millions of dollars worth of those "risky" investments to seniors.
Option to invest 2% to 4% of funds in "safe" stocks
After the 2004 re-election victory, the Bush administration began making the case for transformational change of Social Security. The president had drawn a line in the sand: personal or private retirement accounts had to be part of the solution.
The idea was to create an option for people to invest in a small portion--2% to 4%--of their Social Security dollars into "safe" stocks, mutual funds, and other appropriate retirement vehicles.
It fit the president's oft-touted theme of "the ownership
society"; it encouraged people to take control of responsibility for their own future; and it was fiscally responsible to solve a large, unfunded liability.
The discussion centered on two battles we would have to wage. The first would be to "educate"
the public about the problems facing Social Security and the need to fix them. The goal of this effort was to create a crisis mentality. The second battle would be to shape the solution and make sure that personal retirement accounts were part of it.
OpEd: In aggregate, stock market ok; but what about losers?
If the guiding philosophy behind the traditional system of social insurance could be described as “We’re all in it together,” the philosophy behind Bush’s Ownership Society seems to be, “You’re on your own.” Relying on the magic of the marketplace is a
tempting idea, elegant in its simplicity. But it won’t work.
Take the Administration’s attempt to privatize Social Security. The Administration argues that the stock market can provide individuals a better return on investment, and in the aggregate
they are right; historically, the stock market outperforms Social Security’s cost of living adjustment. But individual investment decisions will always produce winners and losers. What would the Ownership Society do with the losers?
That doesn’t mean
we shouldn’t encourage individuals to pursue higher-risk, higher-return investment strategies. They should. It just means that they should do so with savings other than those put into Social Security.
Allow investing in government-certified stocks & bonds
The proposals for saving the retirement programs are many. Some politicians want to life the earnings limit and levy the Social Security tax on 100% of our earnings. This, they believe, will "make the rich pay for their fair share." Curiously, they also
recommend lowering the levy on lower income earners. It's a sure way to earn voter loyalty, but a lousy way to reform the system.
Pres. Bush, like many before him, has proposed allowing workers below a certain age to take a portion of their Social
Security contribution and invest the money in one of a series of privately held packages of stocks and/or bonds. These packages would require some certification or approval to prevent investors from being entirely speculative.
Over the long haul, it's clear that investments in the financial markets would produce far better retirement incomes than the current system. But that's over the long haul.
FactCheck: Private accounts are a good bet, not a sure thing
The President did not specify what he would do to fix the Social Security problem. He again urged creation of private Social Security accounts. But those would be of no help whatsoever in shoring up the system’s finances. The President made those private
accounts sound like a sure bet. History suggests that the President is correct -- the stock market has averaged a 6.8% “real” rate of return (adjusted for inflation) over the past two centuries. The administration says a conservative mix of stocks,
corporate bonds and government bonds would return 4.6 percent, even after inflation and administrative costs. And the administration also figures that private accounts would need to generate only a 3 percent rate of return to beat what Social Security
provides. But there’s no guarantee that history will repeat itself. Markets are inherently unpredictable and volatile. At present, for example, all major stock-market indexes are still well below where they were five years ago.
FactCheck: Only SOME of your personal account is yours
The President glossed over some severely restrictive aspects of the accounts he is proposing, saying flatly “the money is yours.” That’s not exactly true. The owners of personal accounts wouldn’t be able to touch the money while they are working,
not even to borrow. The money would remain in the hands of the federal government, which would administer the personal accounts for a fee of about 30 cents per year for every $100 invested.
And even at retirement, the government would control what
becomes of the money. First, the government would automatically take back a portion of the money at retirement and convert it to a guaranteed stream of payments for life-an annuity. Only after the combination of traditional Social Security benefits and
the mandatory annuity payments from the private account equal the poverty level would any remaining portion in the account be “yours.” The President didn’t mention the mandatory nature of these restrictions, calling them only “guidelines.”
As we fix Social Security, we have the responsibility to make the system a better deal for younger workers, and the best way to reach that goal is through voluntary personal retirement accounts. Right now, a set portion of the money you earn is taken out
of your paycheck to pay for the Social Security benefits of today’s retirees. If you are a younger worker, I believe you should be able to set aside part of that money in your own retirement account, so you can build a nest egg for your own future.
Your money will grow, over time, at a greater rate than anything the current system can deliver, and your account will provide money for retirement over and above the check you will receive from Social Security.
In addition, you’ll be able to pass along the money that accumulates in your personal account, if you wish, to your children or grandchildren. And best of all, the money in the account is yours, and the government can never take it away.
Let young people use personal retirement savings accounts
Q: Where do you get the $1 trillion over the next 10 years to continue paying benefits?
BUSH: There is a problem for our youngsters. We’ll honor our commitment to our seniors. But for our children, we need to have a different strategy. I believe that
younger workers ought to be allowed to take some of their own money and put it in a personal savings account, because I understand that they need to get better rates of return than the rates of return being given in the current Social Security trust.
KERRY: You just heard the president say that young people ought to be able to take money out of Social Security and put it in their own accounts. Now, my fellow Americans, that’s an invitation to disaster. The CBO said very clearly that if you were to
adopt the president’s plan, there would be a $2 trillion hole in Social Security, because today’s workers pay in to the system for today’s retirees. We’re going to protect Social Security. I will not privatize it. I will not cut the benefits.
Social Security privatization will keep the system solvent
Q: Where do you get the money to continue paying Social Security benefits? Are you going to have to increase the deficit?
A: Every senior will still get their checks. There is a problem for our youngsters, a real problem. If we don’t act today, the
problem will be valued in the trillions. We need to think differently. We’ll honor our commitment to our seniors. But for our children and our grandchildren, we need to have a different strategy. Recognizing that, I called together a group of our fellow
citizens to study the issue. They came up with a variety of ideas for people to look at. Younger workers ought to be allowed to take some of their own money and put it in a personal savings account, because I understand that they need to get better rates
of return than the rates of return being given in the current Social Security trust. The compounding rate of interest effect will make it more likely that the Social Security system is solvent for our children and our grandchildren.
Allow younger workers to put taxes in a personal account
We will always keep the promise of Social Security for our older workers. With the huge Baby Boom generation approaching retirement, many of our children and grandchildren understandably worry whether Social Security will be there when they need it.
We must strengthen Social Security by allowing younger workers to save some of their taxes in a personal account a nest egg you can call your own, and government can never take away.
Younger workers should have the opportunity to build a nest egg by saving part of their Social Security taxes in a personal retirement account.
We should make the Social Security system a source of ownership for the American people. And we should limit the burden of government on this economy by acting as good stewards of taxpayers’ dollars.
Source: 2004 State of the Union address to joint session of Congress
, Jan 20, 2004
Privatize SS while maintaining govt system
The President’s plan is to move Social Security from its safe, sleepy, government-run home to higher-yielding private accounts that individuals could help direct. In May 2000, candidate Bush had championed the idea of private accounts.
Bush’s bridge proposal would mean funding two retirement systems at once. Bush had suggested that workers under about age 50 could set up new accounts--but the benefits promised to older workers and current retirees would be protected.
Source: The Price of Loyalty, by Ron Suskind, p.139
, Jan 13, 2004
Create Individual Development Accounts with low-income match
Bush supports the creation of Individual Development Accounts, providing savings matches for low-income Americans to accounts that would grow tax-free. His Social Security framework would also give all wage earners the opportunity to invest in financial
assets, an opportunity that only half of Americans can now afford. The tax relief legislation signed into law by the President in 2001 provided almost $50 billion dollars of tax relief over the next ten years to strengthen retirement security.
Source: 2004 Presidential website, georgewbush.com
, Aug 29, 2003
Ensure freedom of choice in retirement planning
The President’s proposal would ensure that workers who have participated in 401(k) plans for three years are given the freedom to choose where to invest their retirement savings.
The President has also proposed that choice be a feature of Social Security itself, allowing individuals to voluntarily invest a portion of their Social Security taxes in personal retirement accounts.
Source: 2004 Presidential website, georgewbush.com
, Aug 29, 2003
Minimize investment risk through diversification
The President’s proposals would ensure that workers can sell company stock and diversify into other investment options, minimizing their risk.
Source: 2004 Presidential website, georgewbush.com
, Aug 29, 2003
Bush commission members all back privatization
Bush named a bipartisan commission today to study Social Security reform and develop a plan to let workers invest some of their payroll taxes in private accounts. The co-chairman will be former New York senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan, a prominent
Democrat who has long urged partial privatization of the government retirement program. The other members of the new commission, all of whom also support privatization, include academics and former lawmakers.
Congressional Democrats immediately
complained that the commission is made up only of those who already support Bush’s plan to allow taxpayers to put part of their 12.4% Social Security payroll tax into private retirement accounts.
Supporters of the idea say it would allow workers to reap higher returns.
Reforms are needed because the program will go broke by 2037. Opponents call Bush’s plan too risky, especially in light of recent stock market turbulence.
Source: Mimi Hall, USA Today, p. 7A
, May 2, 2001
Young workers want to invest some Social Security money
[We want] to give younger workers the option at their choice of being able to manage some of their own money in the private sectors to make sure there’s a Social Security system around tomorrow. There’s a lot of young workers at our rallies we go to,
that when they hear that I’m going to trust them at their option to be able to manage, under certain guidelines, some of their own money to get a better rate of return so that they’ll have a retirement plan in the future, they begin to nod their heads.
Source: Presidential debate, Boston MA
, Oct 3, 2000
Prohibit govt investment in the stock market, private OK
On Social Security:
would “modernize” by allowing workers to put a share of the payroll tax into individual accounts
supports a bipartisan commission to create consensus on reform
would preserve the present disability and survivors’ benefit
supports maintaining the existing system for those at or near retirement
wants to prohibit government investment in the stock market
promises not to raise the payroll tax
Source: The Economist, “Issues 2000”
, Sep 30, 2000
I will touch the third rail so I can fix it
Social Security has been called the “third rail of American politics” -- the one you’re not supposed to touch because it shocks you. But, if you don’t touch it, you can’t fix it. And I intend to fix it.
To seniors in this country: You
earned your benefits, you made your plans, and President George W. Bush will keep the promise of Social Security. No changes, no reductions, no way.
For younger workers, we will give you the option -- your choice -- to put a part of
your payroll taxes into sound, responsible investments. This will mean a higher return on your money, and, over 30 or 40 years, a nest egg to help your retirement, or pass along to your children.
When this money is in your name, in your
account, it’s not just a program, it’s your property. Now is the time to give American workers security and independence that no politician can ever take away.
Source: Speech to Republican National Convention
, Aug 3, 2000
2% real return is not enough; sound investments get 6%
Reform should include personal retirement accounts for young people. Right now, the real return people get from what they put into social security is a dismal 2% a year. Over the long term, sound investments yield about a 6% return. American securities
markets, over time, have been among the most reliable investments in the world. I trust Americans to manage their own money. Everyone should be a part-owner in the American dream.
Source: Speech in Rancho Cucamonga, in “Renewing America’s Purpose”
, May 15, 2000
Support retirement via government-plus-private system
There is a fundamental difference between my opponent and me. He trusts only government to manage our retirement. I trust individual Americans. I trust Americans to make their own decisions and manage their own money. [My plan]:
We must not
change Social Security for those now retired, or nearing retirement.
All Social Security funds in the federal surplus must stay where they belong, dedicated to Social Security.
The payroll tax must not be raised. We cannot tax our way to reform.
Reform should include personal retirement accounts for young people. A young worker can take some portion of his or her payroll tax and put it in a fund that invests in stocks and bonds. We will establish basic
standards of safety and soundness, so that investments are only in steady, reliable funds. Money in this account could only be used for retirement, or passed along as an inheritance.
Privatize Social Security to take advantage of stock market
Gore accused Bush today of devising a “secret plan” that could bankrupt the Social Security system. Gore asserted that Bush was quietly developing a “risky” plan to allow individual investment accounts in Social Security that would jeopardize millions
of taxpayers’ savings. “How does the Bush plan propose to deal with the bankruptcy of Social Security that his privatization scheme would cause? He doesn’t even bother to provide an answer.”
Under Bush’s proposal, taxpayers would be allowed to invest
a small part of their Social Security payroll taxes in the stock or bond markets. Bush’s aides argue that such a plan would help taxpayers take advantage of the stock market’s historic growth.
But Gore asserted today that the plan would make the
system vulnerable to huge market fluctuations that could hurt millions of retirees. And as he has repeatedly done in recent days, he suggested that Mr. Bush was charting a course that was “reckless” and “irresponsible.”