Bush's Pro-Choice Social Security Plan

In hopes of killing President Bush's plan to fix Social Security, the Democrats continue to resort to lies. Their rigged calculator at democrats.senate.gov is just part of their deception.

From the DNC:
Death of a Sales Pitch

President Bush and his top officials are on tour trying to sell their risky plan to privatize Social Security to a skeptical public. It seems the more they talk about their plan, the less popular it becomes.

As they have in the past, the Democrats are trying to scare the public about Social Security. In this case, the Dems are not only trying to scare Senior citizens; they are lying to all Americans about the plan.

It's particularly ironic that the group most against Bush's proposals are seniors, people that will not be affected in any way by the plan. If you were born before 1950, this plan won't alter your benefits at all.
To begin, let's not forget Harry Reid pushed a House bill in 1983 that aimed to keep members of Congress out of the Social Security program.

Let's not forget what the minority leader had to say about personal accounts.

Reid then:
Reid: "[M]ost Of Us Have No Problem With Taking A Small Amount Of The Social Security Proceeds And Putting It Into The Private Sector." (Fox’s "Fox News Sunday," 2/14/99)

Fox’s Tony Snow: "Are You Opposed To Letting People Make The Investment Decisions? In Other Words, Having Some Component Where They Say, ‘I’ll Save The Money Rather Than Letting Uncle Sam Do It For Me.’" Reid: "I Think It’s Important That We Look And I’m Totally In Favor Of Do This And In Fact, There Are A Couple Of Programs Now That We’re Taking A Look At To See If It Will Work With Social Security." (Fox’s "News Sunday," 2/14/99)

Reid: "We’re Visiting Chile Because It Is Doing Interesting Things In Social Security And Other Parts Of Its Free Market System." (Tony Batt, "Reid To Embark On South America Trip," Las Vegas Review-Journal, 3/30/99)

Reid Now:

Reid: "We Won’t Hesitate To Tell America Why The President’s Plan On Social Security Is So Dangerous." (CBS’ "The Saturday Early Show," 2/12/05)

Reid: "I Am Especially Concerned By President Bush’s Proposal To Move Toward The Privatization Of Social Security." (Sen. Harry Reid, "Social Security And African Americans," Press Release, 2/4/05)

From factcheck.org:

President Bush announced April 28 that he is embracing a proposal to address Social Security's financial shortfall by slowing the growth of future benefits for higher-income and middle-income workers, but not for lower-income workers.

Bush said, "I propose that future generations receive benefits equal to or greater than the benefits today's seniors get." Democrats called the proposal a deep benefit cut. But which side is right? Would benefits be equal, or would they be cut?

Both sides have a claim to accuracy, but neither is giving the full story and thus leaving citizens confused. The fact is that the current Social Security benefit formula would cause benefits for future retirees nearly to double in buying power over the next 75 years, even after adjusting for inflation.

What Bush is proposing is a plan that freezes benefits at their current buying power for upper-income workers, while other workers would continue to see benefits rise faster than inflation.

Compared to the buying power of benefits paid to today's retirees, that would not be a "cut" for anybody. Compared to the rising level of benefits provided by the current formula, that would mean a "cut" for upper-income and middle-income workers. And for the bottom 30 percent of earners, those making $25,000 a year, there would be no "cut" at all.

The Dems are inaccurately screaming about "cuts" when no one's benefits would actually be cut.
The President explained his plan once again in his radio address this morning.

He said:
First, I understand that millions of Americans depend on Social Security checks as a primary source of retirement income, so we must keep this promise to future retirees, as well. As a matter of fairness, future generations should receive benefits equal to or greater than the benefits today's seniors get.

Second, I believe a reformed system should protect those who depend on Social Security the most. So in the future, benefits for low-income workers should grow faster than benefits for people who are better off. By providing more generous benefits for low-income retirees, we'll make good on this commitment: If you work hard and pay into Social Security your entire life, you will not retire into poverty.

...Third, any reform of Social Security must replace the empty promises being made to younger workers with real assets, real money. I believe the best way to achieve this goal is to give younger workers the option of putting a portion of their payroll taxes into a voluntary personal retirement account. Because this money is saved and invested, younger workers would have the opportunity to receive a higher rate of return on their money than the current Social Security system can provide.

Some Americans have reservations about investing in the markets because they want a guaranteed return on their money. So one investment option should consist entirely of Treasury bonds, which are backed by the full faith and credit of the United States government. Options like this will make voluntary personal retirement accounts a safer investment that will allow you to build a nest egg that you can pass on to your loved ones.
_______________________________

In sum:

1)The President is not proposing cuts.

2)He is offering the OPTION of personal accounts, in line with his belief in an ownership society.

President Bush is pro-choice when it comes to managing one's retirement funds. It's very funny that the Dems have come out as SO anti-choice on this issue.

Apparently, they are only pro-choice and demand the protection of privacy when it comes to killing the unborn, the disabled, and the elderly.

When the matter is money, the Dems don't trust Americans to make decisions.