Plain Speaking

Tampa, Florida
February 4, 2005
The President Discusses Strengthening Social Security

The President took questions after delivering his prepared speech. At one point, he interupts a young questioner, who has just said his generation doesn't anticipate Social Security being there for them.

THE PRESIDENT: Let me stop there. Hear what he said? First of all, when I was 27 years old, I don't remember having a discussion with anybody about whether or not Social Security would be there. Any other baby boomers here remember talking about Social Security and its viability when we were 27? No. The dynamic has changed. There are 27-year-olders all over the country saying, is the system going to be there, and what are you going to do about it?

Well, he wasn't a 27-year-older, but there was a 32-year-older back in 1977 who was talking a lot about the financial problems with Social Security, back when he was running for Congress in West Texas. And if the "dynamic has changed", it's probably because people like you have been campaigning for over a quarter-century with the idea that Social Security is going bankrupt. (Oh, and by the way, '27-year-olders'? What is that? '27-year-olds' not good enough?)

But what's another itty-bitty falsehood or misdirection on top of all the whoppers? Nothing, really. What was impressive was your complete grasp of the complexities of the issue of Social Security, and your ability to explain those to the people:

Q -- really understand how is it the new plan is going to fix that problem?

THE PRESIDENT: Because the -- all which is on the table begins to address the big cost drivers. For example, how benefits are calculate, for example, is on the table; whether or not benefits rise based upon wage increases or price increases. There's a series of parts of the formula that are being considered. And when you couple that, those different cost drivers, affecting those -- changing those with personal accounts, the idea is to get what has been promised more likely to be -- or closer delivered to what has been promised.

Does that make any sense to you? It's kind of muddled. Look, there's a series of things that cause the -- like, for example, benefits are calculated based upon the increase of wages, as opposed to the increase of prices. Some have suggested that we calculate -- the benefits will rise based upon inflation, as opposed to wage increases. There is a reform that would help solve the red if that were put into effect. In other words, how fast benefits grow, how fast the promised benefits grow, if those -- if that growth is affected, it will help on the red.

Okay, better? I'll keep working on it. (Laughter.)

Would you buy an investment portfolio from this man?

Pathetic.

I wish I could tell whether he's just pretending to be a moron. It would be to his benefit to make it all seem really confusing and difficult, so that people would tune out. And if he did explain it clearly, he'd have to admit to the audience that what he's proposing is to cut benefits, and that, actually, personal accounts do nothing to solve any issue with a shortfall in Social Security.

Although maybe he really is a moron, and doesn't even get how stupid his plan is. The power of legacy at Yale is supposed to be very strong, after all.