More than four decades ago, President John F. Kennedy struck a chord in millions of Americans when he quoted a poet’s evocative line, “for I have promises to keep, and miles to go before I sleep.”
That promise would have to be updated to fit President George W. Bush’s way of doing things. “For it’s hard work, and I have miles to put between me and the promises I’m supposed to keep,” would be more fitting.
If that strikes you as just so much Bush bashing, consider the following from economist, author and Eastern Illinois University professor of economics emeritus Allen W. Smith, Ph.D., of Winterhaven, Florida (via PRNewswire):
President Bush repeatedly promised, during the 2000 campaign, that he would not raid the Social Security trust fund. He further cemented that promise to the American people in his first State of the Union Address delivered Feb. 27, 2001. Bush said in no uncertain terms, “To make sure the retirement savings of America’s seniors are not diverted in any other program, my budget protects all $2.6 trillion of the Social Security surplus for Social Security, and for Social Security alone.”
“The so-called lockbox promise Al Gore and George W. Bush made to the American people during the 2000 campaign bound both candidates, if elected President, to invest all surplus Social Security money in regular marketable Treasury bonds. This would have enabled the Social Security trustees to sell the bonds whenever additional funds were needed to pay benefits without consulting either the president or Congress.
Bush looted every penny of the $509 billion in Social Security surplus generated during his first term, in violation of both his promise and federal law. The president continues to spend more than $400 million of Social Security money each and every day, bleeding the system dry as he publicly says he wants to strengthen Social Security.
If Bush wanted to strengthen Social Security he would have abided by the law and his promise, and Social Security would be more than half a trillion dollars stronger than it is today.
In the private sector, Bush never on his own managed a company that was particularly profitable. In the public sector, he has mismanaged the people’s money on a scale and with a conspicuous lack of good sense and due diligence unparalleled in U.S. history.
Doubters need only look at the budget surplus of 2000 turned into one record budget deficit after another. Look at the crushing $200 billion (so far) cost of Bush’s blunder war in Iraq. Calculate the cost to the economy and to taxpayers of having more than 4 million Americans stuck in long-term joblessness and/or serious underemployment. Then factor in the country’s runaway trade deficit, approaching $600 billion for 2004 alone.
On the rare occasions when Bush is confronted on these things, he spouts shopworn platitudes about “growing the economy” left over from the Reaganomics/voodoo economics debacle of the 1980s. He tells how we’re turning the corner, creating 1.2 million jobs in the last year. But he glibly omits that he’s the first president in 80 years to score a net job loss for his four-year term, and that it’s mostly a wealthy few who are profiting mightily from his policies.
With a record like that, how could any American, regardless of political party or ideological preference, even consider letting Bush have his way with our sound, stable and well-managed Social Security program, simply because of a demographic rough patch that’s 35 or more years in the future? That is, if nothing is done about the problem between now and then, and if Bush’s growth projections continue to be as faulty as they have been so far.
If it becomes necessary to make adjustments to ensure Social Security can meet its future obligations, let’s save the job for a president who puts serving America’s current and future retirees ahead of serving the big-money interests in the financial industries — interests that were and are among his most generous campaign contributors.
Let’s save the job of firming up Social Security for a president with a demonstrated ability to come up with sound economic policies that deliver good results. Last but not least, let’s save the job for a president who keeps his promises.
For more from Dr. Smith, visit his Looting Social Security Web site.
Well, please, this is a little much. Congress has something to say about Federal spending, and I don’t hear or see much fiscal responsibility from that institution. This raiding of the Social Security trust fund is a bit of a non-issue. Even if surplus SS money is investen in T-bonds, Congress and the President will just buy those (ultimately) to fund their schemes. The current method just cuts out the middle man.
If any president fits the bill of fiscal responsibility, it is George HW Bush. He made the calls that cleaned up the savings and loan meltdown, made some tax increases that put the house in order, and set the stage for the growth of the nineties that gave us the budget surpluses. This just did not resonate with the electorate.
rightsaidfred, we’re going to have to agree to disagree about Bush 41′s record. I seem to recall he vowed no new taxes before he actually voted for tax increases, plus a raft of fee increases, alienating fiscal conservatives in his party. (I sometimes wonder if Bush’s zeal at bashing flip-floppers causes moments of discomfort at family gatherings.) But that’s all GOP intraparty stuff.
For the country, Bush presided over a hard slide into a significant recession, sitting on his hands and reciting mostly happy talk. A shot of good, old-fashioned fiscal stimulus could’ve worked wonders, and by reaching across the party line, he would’ve gotten it. But, no ticky, no shirty, as they used to say.
Some economic groundwork for the ’90s boom probably was laid during Bush 41′s term, but I believe it was much more a matter of bullet-biting, reduced military spending and overall relative restraint during Clinton’s term, by the administration and Congress.
Again, thanks for adding you views.
I don’t recall much restraint during the Clinton years. Clinton was a big spender with a lot of spending back loaded to later years.
My point was that if any recent president fits the bill of fiscal responsibility it would be Bush 41, but the public never really got behind him on that matter. We pick our presidents for other reasons.