On the White House website, at http://www.whitehouse.gove/infocus/social-security, there is the following statement about Bush's thoughts on Social Security.
"President Bush has discussed the importance of Social Security and the need to fix the Social Security system for future generations of Americans. The President has assured Americans that he will not change the Social Security system in any way for those born before 1950.
- Social Security was one of the great moral successes of the 20th century by providing a critical foundation of income for retired and disabled workers.
- For one-third of Americans over 65, Social Security benefits constitute 90% of their total income."
Now isn't it interesting that the White House acknowledges that Social Security ends up providing 90% of the income of one-third of our seniors, yet Republicans are proposing to "fix" Social Security by cutting those very benefits for seniors. Funny, but it doesn't seem logical that anyone should claim to be saving Social Security, a benefit program, by cutting benefits.
What cutting benefits does is save budget revenues for other uses--say, tax cuts for the super-rich. You know, just like the funds raised by the Social Security taxes now have been used to fund the general revenue making it more possible for the Bush Administration to cut taxes--like providing a special, new "benefit" for wealthy stockholders whose dividends are now taxed at the low preferential rate applied to capital gains. Why is it okay to use Social Security taxes being paid now by those who will be seniors in the future to fund tax cuts for the wealthy now, and then cut the benefits to be paid to those seniors in the future? I guess this Administration doesn't much care what happens to seniors. The only reason for the claim of protecting current seniors must be to get them to support the undoing of Social Security for their children's generation! Shouldn't we be better stewards than that suggests?
Recent Comments