View Full Version : Bush spends 2.2 million of your money to push Social Security overhaul...


I, Claudius
04-10-2005, 02:54 PM
I realize $2.2 million isn't a whole lot of money to most Republicans - hell, that's probably DeLay's annual salsa and Doritos budget (of course, lobbyists pick up the tab for most of that) - but it's my money and yours, and the Preznit is spending $2.2 million of our money to push his own partisan agenda.

Bush lobbying effort skirts law
Administration has spent at least $2.2 million so far http://www.marketwatch.com/1.gif By Rex Nutting (http://www.marketwatch.com/news/mailto.asp?siteid=mktw&x=114+110+117+116+116+105+110+103&y=Rex%20Nutting&guid=%7B5E61F470%2D3030%2D48F6%2DB741%2DAE9A15AF49 03%7D), MarketWatch
Last Update: 11:00 AM ET April 10, 2005
WASHINGTON (MarketWatch) - The Bush administration has spent millions of dollars in the past two months on its campaign to overhaul Social Security, narrowly skirting laws that prohibit spending of taxpayer funds to indirectly lobby Congress.


President Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney and more than 20 other administration officials have blanketed the country since early February, delivering more than 100 speeches in 37 states in an effort to rally the public behind Bush's Social Security plans.

Although no hard figures on costs are available, rough calculations show the White House and other agencies have spent at least $2.2 million on the campaign so far.

The nonpartisan Government Accountability Office has been asked by Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Calif., to investigate the costs of the pro-privatization effort. Republicans on the House Appropriations Committee have also asked quietly for an accounting, according to the Washington Post.

Waxman, the top Democrat on the House Government Reform Committee, asked the GAO to determine whether "the Bush administration has crossed the line from education to propaganda."

Federal law prohibits spending any public funds for publicity or propaganda designed to support or defeat legislation pending in Congress.

But in practice prosecutors and courts have found it difficult to clearly define what's a legitimate public relations effort and what's illegal propaganda.

The line is murky. "Informing the public is the president's responsibility," Waxman wrote. "Using taxpayer resources to mount a sophisticated propaganda and lobbying campaign is an abuse of the president's high office."

Earlier this year, Waxman and other Democrats complained about what they said was an increasingly political tone in public documents produced by the Social Security Administration.

Bush making history

Bush's devotion to the cause has few historical precedents.

Not since Woodrow Wilson fought for the League of Nations with his last ounce of strength has an American president wooed the public so ardently for their support on domestic legislation.

"There's been nothing remotely like this" in recent decades, said Stephen Hess, a scholar at the Brookings Institution specializing in presidential politics.

Presidential historians say Bush is attempting a very difficult maneuver, akin to a bank shot in billiards. Typically, a president has success when fanning the public's latent opinions, but not when trying to move a skeptical public to his point of view.

Polls show the president is making little headway in persuading the public to demand changes in the venerable old age and disability insurance program. Fewer Americans see Social Security as a crucial issue now than did before Bush and his team embarked on their campaign.

Perhaps more importantly, members of Congress are not flocking to his banner.

While most recent presidents have used the "bully pulpit" to go directly to the people, no president has expended the kind of effort on a legislative issue that Bush and his administration have on the issue of crafting private investment accounts onto Social Security.

60 cities, 60 days

Bush himself has spoken at 25 events in 20 states on the topic since his State of the Union address in early February. According to press reports, Bush's audiences are carefully screened to exclude those expressing disapproval of his plans.

Twenty-two other administration officials, including Vice President Dick Cheney, Treasury Secretary John Snow, three other Cabinet secretaries and four top officials at the Social Security Administration, have been on the road talking up the need to overhaul Social Security.


http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story.asp?guid=%7B5E61F470-3030-48F6-B741-AE9A15AF4903%7D&siteid=mktw

Scalliwag
04-10-2005, 03:20 PM
All this is is another way for the corrupt businessmen and women bilk money. "Private accounts" is code for making some backdoors to loot money.
All the people that argued that the S&L's needed to be unregulated are behind these kind of ideas. Neil Bush was on the board of one of the largest S&L's BTW.
Maybe if they abolished cozy penetentiaries and made the death penalty an option for people like Ken Lay I would be a little more open-minded. But the people running the show are a little too corrupt to be trusted.

klegg
04-10-2005, 03:44 PM
Really, why not? After all, his narrow election victory did give him "capital".

And it is not like we are in huge amounts of debt, or fighting a multi front war..

Scalliwag
04-10-2005, 03:56 PM
I think history is an excellent teacher. The last time the republicans controlled the house, senate, and presidency was in the Eisenhower era. But that was not remembered as the Eisenhower era, it was the McCarthy era. They were extremist then and today is certainly no different. Too bad the moderates in the party have no voice whatsoever because as Bush said "you're either fer us er against us".
They played up on peoples fears then as now. They have not changed at all.

SharkDiver
04-10-2005, 05:54 PM
I cant wait till the S.S. is reformed,That means I can invest 4% of my SS funds to a private account were I can keep a eye on it instead of the gov. having my money untill they think its time for me to have some of it back.If you peeps dont want to put your money into a private account you dont have two,You can just leave it were it is now and hope you can get some back later. :rolleyes:
It really doesnt matter what this prez. does because most of the libs are going to bash him anyways,He cant do no right in most of your eyes. Reading all the bashng is really just a wast of time.
shark

Scalliwag
04-10-2005, 06:06 PM
Oh yeah, and the fact repubs are still freak out over Clinton makes that reasoning a little screwed up. I don't recall them saying anything good about him either.
He needs to worry a little more about getting his huge ass deficit under control and quit playing politics with braindead people to apease his nazi rightwing faction. His legacy will be the first prez to see over $2 per gallon gas and he just really does not want to talk about that either. Find something that dumbass has done right.... please because he is an expensive POS to support IMHO

Rotarian_SC
04-10-2005, 06:19 PM
Bush has no legacy except for having Dick Cheney leave a white stain on his suit ;).

Well most of the people on this site would commend Bush for saying that we need to have a fiscally conservative economic policy by cutting the defecit. If he was to say that politics should stay out of family and legal matters instead of trying to expand the government, I would commend him. Do you not realize there are many conservatives that we here respect and appreciate, like Barry Goldwater and John McCain?

You don't know what Bush will do with the accounts. From the supposed plan from inside sources the Washington Post laid out, your account won't be nearly as free as you think it is, with the government deciding how much you get back. Bush hasn't laid a plan out yet. However, he has managed to say that the "full faith and credit" of the US Government is worthless, and has said that his un-announced plan would cost an additional two trillion dollars towards our debt. Most "liberals" are those supporting Bush because of bigger government (Patriot Act, Shiavo Case) and a liberal economic policy (huge increase in spending with a cut in taxes [aka borrow and spend Republican]).

Scalliwag
04-10-2005, 06:34 PM
Right, how many times has the republican led fiasco had to raise the debt ceiling since goober has been in office? And "candidate" Bush said that if he ever got us into a military action he would have an exit strategy before going in.
Now we are finding out that the Bush administration has been producing it's own news. Hmmm, so did Hitler, it's called propaganda.
Hell I am not a lib and I sure as hell cannot find anything "right" that dipshit has done to make up for a huge list of wrongs.
Hell even two of his people outed a CIA agent and he wants nothing more than for that to be swept under the rug. If not he would have forced his entire administration to sign a release to allow the reporters to name the culprits.
There is a lot more pressing issues that this guy has created that need to be taken care of but he has no answers or plans for any of that.

jsh1120
04-10-2005, 07:37 PM
I cant wait till the S.S. is reformed,That means I can invest 4% of my SS funds to a private account were I can keep a eye on it instead of the gov. having my money untill they think its time for me to have some of it back.If you peeps dont want to put your money into a private account you dont have two,You can just leave it were it is now and hope you can get some back later. :rolleyes:
... Uh...You might want to check on what the President is actually (apparently) proposing. In fact, as he keeps pointing out, the proposal is not for "private" accounts, but for "personal" accounts managed by private firms on contract from the government. It's not a personal account in the sense that you have control of it, only that it is managed 'in your name."

Furthermore, what you'll get at the end of your contributions is only the difference, if there is any, between the return on your personal account and what you would have received from Social Security. You'll have to return the amount that you would have contributed to SS to fund the system. Assuming that your "personal" account results in interest of, say, 4% per year, and the return on US Government Securities is 3.75% (both the historical estimates), you'd get 0.25% from your "personal" account.

On the other hand, if your "personal" account doesn't do as well as the Social Security investments, you lose, since those benefits aren't guaranteed.

Now maybe the stock market will do much better in the next 40 years than it has in the last 40. But stocks are subject to the same demographics that impacts the current social security system and it's doubtful that the growth in stocks over the next 40 years will match those of the last 40.

Finally, you'll be required to convert your personal account into an annuity when you retire. You won't be given the option of taking the money you've earned to spend or invest as you please. (Otherwise, the entire system could collapse.)

There are other complications, like the pricing of annuities depending on the year you happen to retire. (These can vary greatly from one year to the next.)

But the bottom line is that if you believe that you're going to be able to take a significant part of your Social Security taxes, control the investments made with them, and reap a significantly higher rate of return, that's simply not what is being proposed.

If you want to do that, then stop buying consumer goods and going to restaurants, take the money you save, and invest it.