dubya doesn’t read the Constitution.
Heads up via Holden at First Draft.
Passed by Congress June 13, 1866. Ratified July 9, 1868.
The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void….
March 16, 2005
President’s Press Conference
James S. Brady Briefing Room
10:15 A.M. EST
I think people like the idea of being able to take some of their own money — in other words, government says, you can decide, as opposed to, we’ll decide for you, you get to decide if this is in your interest. And you get to decide whether you want to set some of your money aside in an account that will earn a better rate of return than that which will be earned in the Social Security system. That’s an important part of making sure the system works for the individual.
I repeat, personal accounts do not permanently fix the solution. They make the solution more attractive for the individual worker. And that’s important for people for understand, John, and that’s why it’s very important for Congress to discuss this issue.
In terms of timetables, as quickly as possible — whatever that means. No, I am going to — one of the things that I think is very important for people to understand is that I believe that we have a duty to work on big problems in Washington, D.C., and so I’m going to continue working on this. And it’s, I guess — I’m not going to go away on the issue, because the issue is not going to go away. The longer we wait, the more difficult it is to solve the problem.
And, listen, I fully understand it’s a difficult issue; otherwise it would have been solved a long time ago. And I understand some members don’t — view this as a tough vote. In other words, why did you bring it up, it’s a tough vote? And — but that’s just not the way I think, John. I think we have a duty. I truly do. This is — now is the time to get this solved. I remember 1983, we’ve got a 75-year solution. It wasn’t a 75-year solution that they came up with. It was a — I like the spirit of people coming together from both parties to sit down and see if they couldn’t solve the immediate problem, but it wasn’t a 75-year solution because we’re talking about it now. And in 2018, the situation starts to get worse because more money is coming into the system — I mean, more money is going out of the system than coming in.
You know, one thing about Social Security — I’m sorry to blow on here, but now that you asked — a lot of people in America think there is a trust: your money goes in, the government holds it, and then the government gives your money back when you retire. That’s just not the way it works. And it’s important for the American citizens to understand. It’s a pay-as-you-go system. And right now, we’re paying for a lot of programs other than Social Security with the payroll tax coming in, thereby leaving a pile of IOUs. And part of why I think a personal account is an attractive option for a younger worker is that there will be real assets in the system at this point in time.
I also will continue reminding people, when it comes to personal accounts, that the system oftentimes doesn’t work for a widow. You know, if a wage-earner dies prior to 62, there are no spousal benefits available until 62. If the spouse — both spouses work, the spouse that survives will get the higher of his or her Social Security benefits, or the death benefits, but not both. In other words, somebody’s contribution to the system just goes away. And a personal account will enable somebody to leave behind an asset base to whomever he or she chooses. And that’s an important concept for people to understand….
Uh, those are called government bonds. They are public debt.
I love this:
Who’s fault is that Mr. “Run up the deficit with tax breaks for the top one per cent while your policies kill the economy”?
Eh. He doesn’t understand the Constitution.
Is anyone in our incompetent and enabling media going to ask him?