{"id":22325,"date":"2004-12-20T01:01:01","date_gmt":"2011-05-19T07:00:21","guid":{"rendered":""},"modified":"2011-05-19T07:00:21","modified_gmt":"2011-05-19T07:00:21","slug":"masterful_bush_performance_with_press","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/admin.rushlimbaugh.com\/daily\/2004\/12\/20\/masterful_bush_performance_with_press\/","title":{"rendered":"Masterful Bush Performance with Press"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

Did you see the president\u2019s press conference? Was that not masterful? He was just awesome in this press conference. He was just kicking butt out there, folks, not letting these reporters pigeonhole him. He had some great answers on Social Security and Don Rumsfeld, and we\u2019ll get to all that. We\u2019ve got the audio from the president\u2019s presser. It\u2019s his final press conference of the year, and we have some audio sound bites. We have a lot of stuff to do. Greetings and great to have you with us. It is the EIB Network and the Rush Limbaugh program, coming to you as always today from the Limbaugh Institute for Advanced Conservative Studies. Our telephone number, 800-282-2882, and the e-mail address is Rush@eibnet.com<\/a>. One of the big subjects that came up, of course, at the press conference, aside from Secretary Rumsfeld — and, by the way, I noticed that Richard Lugar and Senator John Warner, those two senators, did not throw Rumsfeld overboard yesterday. <\/line>They did not join the Republican fray to do that. Now there\u2019s this new controversy that Rumsfeld did not personally sign the sympathy letters, that a machine did it, and he has admitted that\u2019s the case. We need to go back and find out what precedent on this is, how many defense secretaries personally signed all these letters just to put it in perspective. I\u2019m not commenting on the practice. I just want to put it all in perspective. But as I say, one of the big things that came up in this press conference was “Soche” Security, and the president was just artful in this. Unfortunately, we don\u2019t have those sound bites yet. We\u2019re still working on it because the press conference took a long time this morning. It was at least 45 minutes or an hour, and so we\u2019re still assembling audio sound bites, but the press kept asking him for specifics, and he said, “This is not the way this works. I\u2019m not going to negotiate with myself in front of you guys.”<\/line> He must have said this to him two or three times, and kept they asking, (Breathless reporter impression) “Are you going to put limits on how much people can pay taxes? Are you going to put limits on benefits? Are you going to raise the retirement?” You know, all these things. This is not how this is done. One of the best lines was, a couple reporters said, “Well, some people saying it\u2019s not that big a deal yet,” and the president said, “Why are we waiting for a crisis to fix everything around here?” You know, the last thing we ought to do is wait for a crisis and then start fixing it. It never gets fixed right. We have a problem; we can see the problem and let\u2019s address it. “Two of President Bush\u2019s top advisors refused Sunday as well to rule out the possibility that wealthy people might have to pay more to help cover the cost of his move to partially privatize Social Security,” and that\u2019s again not what it is. It is creating private accounts. <\/emphasize>He\u2019s NOT going to privatize it. “Neither the Treasury Secretary John Snow nor Andrew Card, the White House chief of staff, would say whether Bush\u2019s ideas about overhauling the federal retirement program would include raising the limit on income subject to [Soche<\/emphasize>] Security taxes. <\/line>“People currently pay those taxes on income up to $87,900 a year. That level will climb to $90,000 next year. One proposal to help compensate for the private accounts would raise or eliminate the tax cutoff, which would mean the wealthier people would pay more.” That\u2019s a thing that\u2019s been discussed. “Asked on This Week whether that was possible, Card said, ‘The rate that you and I pay contribute to our Social Security, the president does not want to see that rate increased.\u2019 He would go no further in subsequent questioning.” They\u2019re trying to get Bush to admit he\u2019s going to raise taxes is what this is all about, and that\u2019s why he\u2019s not playing ball with these guys on this question. Andrew Card and John Snow, both appeared on Fox News Sunday, too, and they said that Social Security “is beyond repair, as it now stands.” They said details of a plan to overhaul it remain to be worked out. The president said so today, too. He said, “Hey, you negotiate this with Congress, not with you guys, and I don\u2019t negotiate this with myself — and I\u2019m not going to start negotiating with myself here.” <\/line><\/p>\n

He must have said this at least twice that I was able to hear. “Asked whether Bush\u2019s ideas would remove guarantees of Social Security benefits to younger workers, Card said, ‘Under no one\u2019s plan will younger workers receive benefits they\u2019ve been promised because the Social Security system doesn\u2019t have the financial underpinning, the foundation to support the expectations of Social Security 75 years from now, 50 years from now.'” So again, that question asked whether Bush\u2019s ideas would remove guarantees of Social Security benefits to younger workers, Card said, “Under nobody\u2019s plan will younger workers receive benefits they\u2019ve been promised because the Social Security system doesn\u2019t have the financial underpinning or the foundation to support those expectations, 75 years from now…'” That\u2019s why it\u2019s got to be fixed. There\u2019s no guarantee right now! That\u2019s the bottom line. You can\u2019t get more direct that that. The promise is empty, <\/emphasize>and one of the things that this story attempts to do is set up with this idea.<\/line>“Asked whether Bush\u2019s ideas would remove guarantees of Social Security benefits…” The whole point of this, you see, is to establish a new template, and the new template is that Bush is taking away something, when in fact you can\u2019t take away something that\u2019s not there. This answer by Andrew Card was right on the money. Because make no mistake about it, you\u2019ve got a big problem out there, Social Security, and if this were a Democrat president that were talking about trying to fix it, these questions would be 100% supportive. In fact, the press would be saying, “How can we help you, Mr. President? How can we help you get this done for your legacy, Mr. President?” But this media is interested in doing everything it can to destroy <\/emphasize>Bush\u2019s plan before it even becomes known so they want to set up this template that Bush is going to take away something! <\/line>“Is your plan going to remove the guarantee for younger workers?” and Card said, “What? There is no guarantee! We don\u2019t have a foundation to guarantee this even 50 years out.” So they\u2019re clever up there at the White House. They know who these guys are in the media and they know where they\u2019re coming from, and they know what the intentions are and so they\u2019re not going to get specific about all this, just going to keep it generic until they get — and one thing Bush said, “Will you guys go ahead and read the Moynihan report?” He must have said this two or three times, not just today but over the course of recent weeks when he\u2019s been peppered with questions about this: “Would you guys just go read the Moynihan report? I mean, that\u2019s the basis on which we\u2019re all putting together our ideas here. That\u2019s the commission I appointed, and Moynihan a big Democrat.” They seem to want to not go there, precisely because Moynihan was <\/emphasize>a big Democrat. Ronald Brownstein in his Washington Outlook column in the Los Angeles Times today: “Bush May Be Borrowing Trouble with Social Security Plan.”<\/line> What Brownstein is doing here is best to bog down the debate in minutia. “Just in case the prospect of a Social Security overhaul wasn\u2019t complicated enough, get ready for a numbingly abstruse concept that may prove to be one of the pivotal points in the debate: the difference between implicit and explicit debt. The underlying question is whether the Social Security program President Bush envisions would swell the national debt to dangerous levels, raising interest rates and burdening future generations with unsupportable debt-service payments. Critics say that\u2019s the inevitable endpoint of Bush\u2019s direction. His administration insists it can borrow big to restructure Social Security without adverse consequences. The one point on which everyone now agrees is that Bush\u2019s Social Security plan would require substantial federal borrowing for decades. Bush hasn\u2019t endorsed a specific proposal, but he\u2019s made clear that his central goal is to allow younger workers to divert part of their payroll taxes into individual accounts that they could invest in stocks or bonds.”<\/line>This is sort of an intricate way of getting back to this fearsome and frightening transition figure. A transition figure — what is it, Mr. Snerdley, $2 trillion? Is that what they\u2019re saying? Can I put this $2 trillion transition cost…? Yeah, over ten years, $2 trillion, but let me put this in perspective for you, and this goes back to what Andrew Card was saying yesterday in his appearances yesterday on the Sunday shows — and I don\u2019t accept this $2 trillion figure. I mean, it\u2019s out there. I don\u2019t even accept this notion that the one point on which now everyone agrees is blah, blah, blah, blah, that you can\u2019t do this without massive borrowing. Until I see a plan, I\u2019m not going to join some consensus on this basis. But let\u2019s just, for the sake of hypothetical discussions here, let\u2019s assume that this $2 trillion brand-new money over ten years — they\u2019re gonna have to come up with it somewhere — let\u2019s assume that that\u2019s accurate. <\/line> Well, we need to put this in perspective. You either spend $2 trillion now or you wait and do nothing and be faced with a shortfall of $20 trillion in 50 to 75 years. This is what the president means by, “Why wait for a crisis to fix something?” It\u2019s just stunning. It\u2019s all because a Republican president is messing with FDR\u2019s legacy; we gotta make sure he doesn\u2019t succeed. But as TIME Magazine points out in its story on Bush being Man of the Year: He\u2019s energized by his critics. He doesn\u2019t care who they are. In fact, he\u2019s honored to have the ones that he has. They help him define himself — and I\u2019ve had that attitude for about, oh, I\u2019d say 14 of the 16 years that I have been doing this program. Anyway, one other thing about this Social Security plan. I got an interesting plan from a friend of mine who will soon be reaching the Social Security age, and is thus a little bit interested in some of these things. It\u2019s an interesting point. <\/line>BREAK TRANSCRIPT<\/line>RUSH: I got this e-mail from a friend of mine after watching this Social Security business, and this relates to the idea that the amount of income on which Social Security taxes, FICA, on your paycheck would be subject to income. Right now, as you know, the ceiling is $87,900, goes to $90,000 next year. Now, there\u2019s scuttlebutt going around that we\u2019re going to raise <\/emphasize>that, and the scuttlebutt: We may not even put a ceiling on it at all, make it just like the Medicare tax. Medicare is now about 2.8% of everything. Oh, oh, oh, and by the way can I share with you this story (rustling pages) ladies and gentlemen? In order to fix Medicare, you know, we put a 2.8% payroll tax base on every dollar earned in this country, no limit. LA Times: “Medicare\u2019s Troubles May Be Sleeping Giant — The program could run out of funds two decades before Social Security is forecast to, experts say.” All this means to me is this is just more proof the welfare state fails. <\/emphasize>It\u2019s just more proof the welfare state doesn\u2019t succeed, but that\u2019s already established. <\/line><\/p>\n

Remember in 1994, when the Republicans took the House of Representatives, one of the first things they did was say, “We\u2019ve got to fix Medicare,” and do you remember what happened to\u2019em? They were savaged as people that wanted to take Medicare away from old people. Remember that “wither on the vine” line that they did against Newt Gingrich? We\u2019ve aired that ad on this program probably a hundred times to try to put it straight, and they tried and they tried, and they got their heads handed to them on a platter, and they went home whimpering and said, “It\u2019s not worth this.” Their character was impugned; their reputations were under assault, and so they came up with a stop gap, and it\u2019s this massive 2.8% tax increase, or tax, on all income — and now Medicare is in problem! Sleeping giant? This headline is so misleading, Medicare\u2019s troubles are not a sleeping giant. <\/line>They\u2019ve been people who have been trying to warn about this for now ten years, and this is something that a lot of people have tried to get fixes on and the liberal left moves in and puts on the brakes and says, “You can\u2019t do it. You can\u2019t stop it.” They start scaring Medicare recipients by claiming that the move is gonna result in the old folks losing their Medicare. “It\u2019s a boon to the pharmaceuticals,” or whatever garbage they utter. At the same time, those same people who claim we don\u2019t need to fix Medicare are the ones running around saying, 42 million without health insurance, 44 million without health insurance, homeless without health insurance, parakeets and frogs and falcons without health insurance — and yet there\u2019s nothing wrong with the system when it comes time to fix it. So now in an attempt to derail the president\u2019s Social Security plan, all of a sudden here comes the Medicare warning (gasp)! “Why it\u2019s going to be a problem 20 years before Social Security, we gotta fix it!”<\/line>Now, folks, I don\u2019t say this because I\u2019m worried about what the president\u2019s going to do, especially after seeing his press conference today. I mention this only to continue to advise you on just where the loony left is and their willing accomplices in the liberal spin machine media. It\u2019s anything <\/emphasize>to deny Bush success, anything <\/emphasize>to deny him something that might work. Anything, anything <\/emphasize>that might result in a program that proves the liberal way doesn\u2019t work, they\u2019re going to work against as hard as they can. Any program that will work and any program that will work is going to be a major shift structurally from the way a liberal would structure it, they\u2019re going to oppose that and they\u2019re going to try to stop that all they can because they can\u2019t afford for any more flat-out evidence that the welfare state doesn\u2019t work, and so they are just hell-bent on this. But make no mistake: Bush has firm resolve on this. You can tell with this press conference today. It\u2019s a long. We\u2019re having to cut his answers. His answer was five minutes long on this Social Security thing, and we don\u2019t play five-minute sound bites here unless they\u2019re of me. <\/line>So we\u2019re going to cut this up into two or maybe three bites, and we\u2019ll get to that later in the hour. But anyway back to this point. Okay, the Social Security ceiling right now on which taxes are deducted, 87.9, is going to go up to 90 grand — and then if this plan that we\u2019re hearing about is true, all income will be taxed for Social Security, with no ceiling, no income ceiling at the top. Now, if you go to the Social Security website, there\u2019s a formula that you can use to determine your retirement benefits. I got the thing from the Social Security administration the other day which would tell me what my benefits are going to be when I retire and it\u2019s been based on my salaries over the years. This is the point. It\u2019s been based on how much I\u2019ve contributed which has been based on how much I have earned. So one of the criteria you need to calculate the benefit you\u2019re going to get in the future is salary. The computer then makes certain assumptions of past income based on this number, but if you enter more than 87.9 you get this message. Say you earn whatever in the past, larger than $87,900 you get this: <\/line>“Note: For your benefit calculation, we limited your earnings to the 87,900 taxable maximum for 2004.” In other words, the calculations differ on increased income only because of assumptions that there must <\/emphasize>have been higher income in the past. So, if we\u2019re going to fix Social Security by raising the cap what we never hear is for the rich and the well-to-do who are going to be paying more taxes, are they also going to get more benefits? Because that\u2019s the way it\u2019s always worked up till now. Your benefits based on what you pay in. If the recipients are going to get more based on what they pay in, then there is no fix. If not, if the recipients who pay far more in Social Security income do not get any more benefits than what anybody else gets, then it is an admission that the whole ponzi scheme is just another tax for a welfare program for old people! It sort of proves itself by however you answer that question — and we know what the answer is. Just because you pay more doesn\u2019t mean you\u2019re going to get more benefits.<\/line>BREAK TRANSCRIPT<\/line>RUSH: Thomas in McComb, Illinois. I\u2019m glad to welcome you as the first caller today. Welcome to the EIB Network. Hello, sir.<\/line>CALLER: Thanks for taking my call, Rush. Let me first say it was a conservative black man who works for a drug company that turned me on to you. So —<\/line>RUSH: Well, that\u2019s great.<\/line>CALLER: — I think that\u2019s notable, given what people think your audience is sometimes. But I was calling about Soche Security, and my concern is since the government has taken all my Soche Security funds and basically spent them on whatever over the last 30 years, why should I as a taxpayer pay any more into a system which is only broke because the government wasted my money? Why should I pay into a system unless it can be proven to me that there is a lockbox where that money is going to but they won\u2019t spend it and waste it like they did in the past?<\/line>RUSH: Eh. You know, put “lockbox” out of your mind. There never has been a lockbox. That was just liberal semantic trickery. There\u2019s nothing to put in a lockbox. I mean (laughing) no money, anyway. Maybe blue dresses and things like that could go in there, but there\u2019s no money from the Social Security system to put in a lockbox. That\u2019s why the president is serious about this fix and not waiting for it to be a crisis. Now, I don\u2019t know what the plan\u2019s going to be, and I think the idea that nobody is going to have to pay more is a little specious. I think somebody is. There\u2019s no question. The question for us is, as a society, what are we going to do about this? We\u2019ve got a couple options where Social Security is concerned, and one of them I don\u2019t think will never see the light of day and that\u2019s just to punt. “Okay, we\u2019re going to give up this program. It\u2019s up to you. Your retirement is up to you. If you\u2019re going to end up in the gutter you\u2019re going to end up in the gutter.” It isn\u2019t going to happen because we are a compassionate society. Even if we did take that step the first time we saw grandma and grandpa in the gutter, you know, sucking up whatever is in there so they could live, that would be the end of it.<\/line><\/p>\n

We\u2019d go do something about it, and start the program all over again. So the second thing is, take a look at the program as it is. Understand what it is; be clear about what it will be in the future, and then go structure it that way. That\u2019s what wasn\u2019t done the first time. The reason this is a problem is because the whole population, generation after generation, was allowed to believe that it was the sole source of their retirement — and furthermore, it wasn\u2019t even their money. It\u2019s the government that\u2019s going to pay for their retirement. That has been allowed to become a matter of fact in way too much people\u2019s minds, and so it\u2019s gotten to the point now that it is unfundable as a guarantee, certain years out and we keep coming up with temporary fixes so that currently elected politicians can take a big pat on the back for fixing something that they don\u2019t fix it; they just patch it. What we have now is a president who\u2019s not running for reelection, who has nothing on the line where that\u2019s concerned, who says, “Look, it\u2019s time we dealt with this, and it\u2019s time we structured this so that it actually means something — and while we\u2019re at it, why don\u2019t we see to it? <\/line>“Why don\u2019t we see if we can come up with a way that these benefits, people getting retirement, actually add up to something meaningful, instead of a measly $1,200 a month or $2,000, whatever it is? Why don\u2019t we see if we can come up with a way over the course of their lifetimes when they\u2019re having these taxes deducted that some of it gets invested so that when they do retire it means <\/emphasize>something?” If you look at not only that, how many plans are there? There are pension plans. That\u2019s 401(k) plans. We talk about retirement as though all there is, is Social Security. But there are all kinds of retirement plans. There are forced saving plans. There are plans out there that allow you to deduct income from taxation if you invest it like a 401(k). We got Keogh plans for the self-employed. We cover retirement so many ways in this country, if people would just be responsible and pay for it themselves. But oftentimes, “Well, you know, Rush, the stresses of putting people through college and I gotta have that new plasma, and have you seen the new rules at Blockbuster? Why if I keep that thing a week I own it! I can\u2019t afford to own it. So there are all these added expenses, Rush. You just don\u2019t understand it.” &lt;sigh><\/line> What I don\u2019t understand is people who don\u2019t have the concept of paying for whatever it is they want and need themselves. That\u2019s really what I don\u2019t understand. Now, I realize some of you Social Security people say, “Well, you\u2019re not talking about me because I\u2019m only getting back what I paid in.” Unh-uh. That stopped years ago. I\u2019m sorry to break it to you, but the fact is that it takes the taxes of people who are currently working, takes four people and their taxes to pay the retirement benefits, Social Security benefits of one recipient. A recipient today is not <\/emphasize>getting back the money he or she put in. That stopped happening, what, ten, 15 years ago at least? That\u2019s why the situation\u2019s untenable. If this doesn\u2019t change, the burden on workers is going to spread from not four but to only two workers, and that means their taxes are going to go up — and if you look at every year\u2019s budget, you\u2019ll see that there\u2019s an effective tax rate, by the time you get down to 2020, 2040, of 78% to pay for this stuff. <\/line>I\u2019m sorry to tell you, people aren\u2019t going to go to work if their tax rate is 78%. They\u2019re going to say, “I want on welfare, too. I\u2019d rather get tax-free income even if it\u2019s not very much rather than go bust my situation out there and get 78% in taxes taken.” That\u2019s untenable. Something has to be done there. There\u2019s simple no question about it. It\u2019s been allowed to fester as a problem out of control for way too long. So finally here\u2019s somebody wants to do something about it, and naturally people don\u2019t like change. Change is new, and therefore change is hard. The scare tactics being employed here are that current retirees “are going to end up with nothing.” Current retirees under whatever plan will not be affected. These people are not going to commit political suicide, and even though the president doesn\u2019t face reelection, members of Congress do who are going to have to negotiate and pass this legislation, and send it to his desk. So that\u2019s where the risk is going to be, is when it gets up there, I think. <\/line>But the president is dead serious about fixing this, and what I don\u2019t understand — well, I do understand it, politically. Intellectually I don\u2019t understand it. What\u2019s wrong with coming up with a new system that actually gives a retiree a meaningful pile of money when he or she retires? What in the world is so threatening about that? Ah! “Threatening” is the right word in the question. What\u2019s threatening is that it takes the government out of its all-important role of providing retirement benefits for the senior citizens, the largest voting bloc in America. If they are no longer totally dependent on government for their retirement then they\u2019re less interested in making sure that people in government stay there to keep providing their retirement. That\u2019s what scares the left. That\u2019s what scares Democrats. It\u2019s what scares the liberals. So they mouth all these platitudes, “You can\u2019t mess with the legacy of FDR! You can\u2019t mess with it!” Why not? What legacy is it? <\/line>It\u2019s a failed legacy. It\u2019s not going anywhere. It\u2019s reached the point of no return. Something has to be done with it, and I think one of the interesting things about this is, it\u2019s a great way to get young people finally involved in politics. You know, all this talk about how the Democrats are registering all these young-uns, all these young-uns are going to show up and mean victory for Kerry — and they didn\u2019t show up. They may have gone out there and registered just to, you know, pretend they were P. Diddy or Russell Simmons or whoever else was out there, you know, MTV\u2019s Rock the Vote crowd, but they still didn\u2019t show up, and my guess is that a whole bunch of \u2019em are looking at the and me saying, “I don\u2019t even want to think about Social Security. I\u2019m gonna pretend it\u2019s not going to be there. I\u2019m taking care of myself.” The wise ones are already thinking in that way, and, and I think more and more of them will unless there\u2019s some sort of a serious fix that is presented as part of the problem.<\/line>BREAK TRANSCRIPT<\/line>RUSH: Let\u2019s play these two bites back-to-back, with nothing between them. No bumper, no comment, just bam, bam, four and five. I mean when four ends you hit five. Is that clear? &lt;sigh> Yeah. Just making sure here, folks, deciding to do this on the fly. Here again, the question that spawned the answer. It\u2019s from CBS cookie cutter Ken Doll anchor John Roberts. “You\u2019ve made Social Security reform the top of your domestic agenda for a second term. You\u2019ve been talking about extensively about the benefits of private accounts, but <\/emphasize>by most estimations private accounts may leave something for young workers at the end but it wouldn\u2019t do much to solve the overall financial problem with Social Security, and I\u2019m just wondering, Mr. President, as you\u2019re promoting these private accounts, why aren\u2019t you talking about some of the tough measures that may have to be taken to preserve the solvency of Social Security, such as increasing the retirement age, cutting benefits or means testing of Social Security?”<\/line><\/p>\n

BUSH: I campaigned on it, as you\u2019re painfully aware, since you had to suffer through many of my speeches. I didn\u2019t duck the issue like others have done in the past. I said, “This is a vital issue, and we need to work together to solve it.” Now, the temptation is going to be by well meaning people such as yourself, John, and others here as we run up to the issue to get me to negotiate with myself in public, to say, you know, “What\u2019s this mean, Mr. President? What does that mean?” I am not going to do that. I don\u2019t get to write the law. I\u2019ll propose a solution at the appropriate time, but the law will be written in the halls of Congress, and I will negotiate with them, with the members of Congress, and they will want me to start playing my hand. “Will you accept this? Will you not accept that? Why don\u2019t you do this sort of thing? Why don\u2019t you do that?” I fully recognize this is going to be a decision that requires difficult choices, John. Inherent in your question is, “Do I recognize that?”<\/line>You bet I do, otherwise it would have been done, and so I just want to try to condition you. I\u2019m not doing a very good job because the other day in the Oval when the press pool came in I was asked about this, a question on Social Security with these different aspects to it, and I said, “I\u2019m not going to negotiate with myself, and I will negotiate at the appropriate time with the law writers,” and so thank you for trying. The principles I laid out in the course of the campaign, and the principles we laid out at the recent economic summit are still the principles I believe in. Nothing will change for those near our Social Security, payroll — I believe you\u2019re the one that asked me about the payroll taxes, if I\u2019m not mistaken — will not go up — and I know there\u2019s big definition about what that means. Well, again, I will repeat: “Don\u2019t bother to ask me,” or you can ask me. I can\u2019t tell you what to ask. That\u2019s not the holiday spirit, (laughs).<\/line>PRESS: (Laughter.)<\/line>BUSH: But it is all part of trying to get me to set the parameters apart from the Congress, which is not a good way to get substantive reform done. <\/line>As to personal accounts, it is judgment essential to make the system viable in the out years, to allow younger workers to earn an interest rate more significant than that which is being earned with their own money now inside the Social Security trust. But the first step in this process is for members of Congress to realize we have a problem, and so for a while I think it\u2019s important for me to continue to work with members of both parties to explain the problem, because if people don\u2019t think there\u2019s a problem we can, you know, talk about this issue till we\u2019re blue in the face and nothing will get done, and there is a problem. There\u2019s a problem because now it requires three workers per retiree to keep Social Security promises; in 2040 it will require two workers per employee to meet the promises and when the system was set up and designed, I think it was like 15 or more workers per employee. That is a problem. The system goes into the red.<\/emphasize> In other words, there\u2019s more money going out than coming in 2018. There is an unfunded liability of $11 trillion, and I understand how this works. You know, many times legislative bodies will not react unless the crisis is apparent, crisis is upon them. I believe the crisis is, and so for a period of time we\u2019re going to have to explain to members of Congress the crisis is here. It\u2019s a lot less painful to act now than if we wait.<\/line>RUSH: Sounds sensible to me. Keep in mind here the members of the press don\u2019t want <\/emphasize>the president to succeed in this, and they\u2019re not going to listen to the substance of what he says. They\u2019re going to keep asking these questions to get the answers they want, and the answers they want are not what he thinks, and the answers they want are not what are not what are necessarily the truth. The answers they want are answers that will pigeonhole him down the road with them. You also note here the president is being very, very careful to avoid saying is, “My plan come hell or high water, and if Congress wants to join me, they can; if they don\u2019t they\u2019re out of the loop.” He\u2019s making it very plain he\u2019s gonna get them involved in this. He\u2019s gonna make them take a stand on it. He full well knows that he\u2019s gonna run into opposition up there because these guys are facing reelection and they\u2019re not <\/emphasize>going to want to deal with the panic and the crisis complaints that the Democrats and the media are going to create. <\/line>So he has an immensely difficult sell job, particularly if he really does want some Democrats on his side on this — and I suspect he\u2019ll get some, because the truth is the truth here, and this is a program that\u2019s too important, and the upside <\/emphasize>of this — the upside of this for any politician, the president included — is if these guys do actually participate with him and get a fix for this, then it can make careers. It can, actually. They can be part of a Washington that actually does something right once in a while, as was the case with welfare reform. You know, Democrats love to now sing the praises of it. Democrats love — well, not all, but a lot of Democrats. They\u2019re never going to get rid of it. They make jokes about it now and then. Welfare reform works. The evidence is undeniable, and a lot of people want to claim credit. Clinton wants to claim credit for it even though he vetoed it three times before he was forced into signing it for reelection in 1996. There\u2019s a tremendous <\/emphasize>opportunity here, not just to do the right thing and get something done that\u2019s good, but a political opportunity at the same time for those who participate in it. <\/line>I think the president has a tremendous amount of — What do they call it? — political capital; he has a lot of collateral here to spend with these guys. He can bring \u2019em up there and he can say, “You all know where we are here. You all can say publicly what you want, but you know where we are with this program. You know we gotta fix it, and I want this. This is a major thing, and I think it\u2019s crucial and it\u2019s important,” and he\u2019s going to have an incredible sales job. But have you ever taken a look recently — and I bet most of you haven\u2019t because this is not the kind of thing that you study; most people don\u2019t. If you look at his legislative track record, pretty damn good. This president gets what he wants. He got his education bill with Ted Kennedy writing it. He got his tax cuts. He\u2019s going to get them enacted permanently. That\u2019s gonna happen as well. If you go back through the legislative record of George W. Bush throughout his first term, he got pretty much what he wanted. Now, there\u2019s some things he hasn\u2019t yet gotten. The immigration reform that he made a big deal out of, but it\u2019s still alive and kicking, and he\u2019s trying, but on most of these controversial things.<\/line>Why do you think the Democrats were so fit to be tied during the campaign? Because he got all these things done and they had to mischaracterize them as mistakes, boondoggles or whatever you, but he has a pretty good legislative track record — and it\u2019s a long shot on this, but my bet is with him on this effort, because I don\u2019t think that anybody on the Democrat side ever really thought that he was serious about this in the campaign. They just look at campaigns the way they run them: Say whatever you have to say, then when you get elected you go do what you\u2019re going to do. But the White House Christmas party, Thursday night, I had a chance to meet Josh Bolten who runs the OMB in the White House, and I had seen him on TV earlier that afternoon. He was on I think Neil Cavuto\u2019s show and I\u2019d seen him and I walked up to him and I\u2019d never met him, and he had said exactly what the president says during the campaign. Hee said, “You know what bugs them? We do what we say we\u2019re gonna do,” and he was talking about Social Security reform and a couple other things in that interview and he was very firm.<\/line>“We do what we say we\u2019re going to do,” and it boggles the minds of a lot of people, but remember the Democrats after 2000 thought they\u2019d been tricked, when Bush actually started implementing what he said he was going to do in the campaign. You know, as I pointed out, the Democrats say things; they\u2019re looking at words. How do they persuade people with words? How do we get people to vote for us with words? How can we change our linguistics? How can we change our semantics, anything they can do to hide who they really are and what they really want to do. That\u2019s the exact opposite of President Bush. He\u2019s out there doing what he says he\u2019s going to do, and he\u2019s doing it, and you\u2019ve gotta put your chips with him on this, even something as large as this, given his legislative track record and his, I think, incredible <\/emphasize>sense of purpose that you can hear in this answer. There\u2019s no question.<\/line>BREAK TRANSCRIPT<\/line><\/p>\n

RUSH: Back to the president\u2019s press conference. Unidentified reporter: “Several Republican lawmakers recently criticized Secretary Rumsfeld. What does need to do to rebuild their trust?”<\/line> BUSH: Well first of all, when I asked the secretary to stay on as secretary of defense, I was very pleased when he said yes, and I asked him to stay on because I understand the nature of the job of the secretary of defense, and I believe he\u2019s doing a really fine job. The secretary of defense is a complex job. It\u2019s complex in times of peace, and it\u2019s complex even more so, in times of war — and the secretary has managed this department during two major battles in the war on terror, Afghanistan and Iraq, and at the same time he\u2019s working to transform our military so it functions better; it\u2019s lighter; it\u2019s ready to strike on a moment\u2019s notice. In other words, that the force structure meets the demands we face in the 21st Century. Not only is he working to transform the nature of the forces, we\u2019re working to transform where our forces are based, and he\u2019s done a fine job and I look forward to continuing to work with him, and I know the secretary understands the Hill. He\u2019s been around in Washington a long period of time, and he will continue to reach out to members of the Hill, explaining the decisions he\u2019s made. I believe that in a new term, members of the Senate and the House will recognize what a good job he\u2019s doing.<\/line>RUSH: Well, it sounds to me like Rumsfeld got a pretty strong vote of confidence there, and I\u2019m sure this is not what assembled members of the White House press corps were hoping to hear. An unidentified reporter then said, “I\u2019d like to go back to Secretary Rumsfeld, sir. You talked about the big-picture elements of his job but did you find it offensive he didn\u2019t take the time to personally sign condolence letters to the families of troops killed in Iraq? And if so, why is that an offense that you\u2019re willing to overlook?”<\/line>BUSH: Listen, I know how Secretary Rumsfeld\u2019s heart. I know how much he cares for the troops. He and his wife go out to Walter Reed and Bethesda all the time to provide comfort and solace. I have seen the anguish in his — or heard the anguish in his voice and seen his eyes when we talk about the danger in Iraq and the fact that youngsters are over there in harm\u2019s way, and he\u2019s a good, decent man. He\u2019s a caring fellow. You know, sometimes perhaps his demeanor is rough and gruff, but beneath that rough and gruff, no-nonsense demeanor is a good human being who cares deeply about the military and deeply about the grief that war causes.<\/line>RUSH: So what do you make of this answer? Here you have letters that are not personally signed, signed by machine. So you have the symbolism there that has people all upset. The president chose to answer the question with a testament to the character of Secretary Rumsfeld, which seems to me to be the more important of the two questions — especially when the wolf pack is out seeking anything it can to get rid of Rumsfeld. I also, by the way, like the president\u2019s answer here. I wish they\u2019d start speaking of this more often, although it\u2019s not a big point with me, but he called Afghanistan and Iraq “two major battles” in the war on terror and a big deal with the left is that these are two wars, two separate wars that are not linked, have nothing to do with one another, and the president clearly made it plain that both theaters are part of one war, and made it clear as well that he stands behind Rumsfeld. He\u2019s not going anywhere. Here\u2019s Jay in Atlanta. Glad you waited, sir. Welcome to the program.<\/line>CALLER: Hi, Rush. Going back to the Social Security thing, I\u2019ve wondered for years why everybody thought there had to be such a massive restructuring of this thing in order to fix it. Basically what needs to be done is for the out-year liabilities to be reduced, and there\u2019s a lot of ways to do that. To me, the simplest thing would be to take caps off, not just of the income that\u2019s taxed, but take caps off of IRAs, Keoghs, 401(k)s, allow people to put however much money they want into those plans, and give them not a deduction against income tax, but a credit <\/emphasize>against the FICA tax — and at the same time, reduce their claim on the Social Security benefits by the percentage that they divert to their personal accounts. It takes down the liability; it raises their future income. You don\u2019t have to give them a dollar-for-dollar swap. It can be 50 cents on the dollar to keep current funding, and ultimately, to use a Newt Gingrich line, it “withers on the vine.”<\/line>RUSH: Yeah. (Laughing.) You don\u2019t want to use that line again. It will be demagogued.<\/line>CALLER: Well, I know, but it does give people the opportunity to opt out. You don\u2019t have to do anything except allow the tax credit. You don\u2019t have to restructure it. If you don\u2019t want to do that, you stay in it. You don\u2019t change it at all. You don\u2019t have to do anything.<\/line>RUSH: Here\u2019s the problem. Your idea is a good one and it makes fiscal sense, and, who knows, a variation of it may end up in the plan. I mean, I wouldn\u2019t form any ideas yet of what this is going to be simply on the basis of press questions and press correspondents. I mean, it\u2019s the press that\u2019s put it out there that we\u2019re going to have to raise retirement age. We\u2019re going to have to raise the ceiling on income that is taxed for Social Security or we\u2019re going to have to reduce benefits. They\u2019re the ones putting all those options out there. The president hasn\u2019t yet. There is no plan. All there is, is a plan to take a certain percentage of what is taxed and allow it to go into private accounts that are managed individually. Now, the one reason why your plan I think might suffer is because the current plan, which seems to be acceptable to a lot of people — in fact demanded by many — is that everybody is covered, which is an insurance policy against those who don\u2019t do what you say. <\/line>Not everybody is going to take care of themselves in their retirement; and even those who try may have an emergency in which they have to go raid their and accounts and deplete it at an age that puts them precariously close to retirement where they don\u2019t have the time and the resources to build it back up, and then what do we do about them? Then we\u2019re back to the same old problem. Then we\u2019ve got people in the gutter, theoretically, figuratively speaking, who tried it. They did their best, but an emergency came up. They went and raided their accounts. They got zilch, zero, nada left, and what do we do about them? I think whatever plan, therefore — and this is because of 70 years of conditioning, 70 years of history. You don\u2019t just punt the plan in toto, particularly in its structure. I think whatever plan they come up with, there has to be an element that covers everybody. Now, you can choose to opt out, and if they let you opt out and all of a sudden when you\u2019re 55 or 60 you need it, what are we going to do? You know we\u2019re going to give you something. We\u2019re a compassionate society.<\/line>END TRANSCRIPT<\/line><\/p>\n\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Did you see the president\u2019s press conference? Was that not masterful? He was just awesome in this press conference. He was just kicking butt out there, folks, not letting these reporters pigeonhole him. He had some great answers on Social Security and Don Rumsfeld, and we\u2019ll get to all that. We\u2019ve got the audio from […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":25,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_et_pb_use_builder":"","_et_pb_old_content":"","_et_gb_content_width":"","ngg_post_thumbnail":0},"categories":[],"tags":[],"yoast_head":"\nMasterful Bush Performance with Press - The Rush Limbaugh Show<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.rushlimbaugh.com\/daily\/2004\/12\/20\/masterful_bush_performance_with_press\/\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:title\" content=\"Masterful Bush Performance with Press - The Rush Limbaugh Show\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:description\" content=\"Did you see the president\u2019s press conference? Was that not masterful? He was just awesome in this press conference. He was just kicking butt out there, folks, not letting these reporters pigeonhole him. He had some great answers on Social Security and Don Rumsfeld, and we\u2019ll get to all that. We\u2019ve got the audio from […]\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"38 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.rushlimbaugh.com\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.rushlimbaugh.com\/\",\"name\":\"The Rush Limbaugh Show\",\"description\":\"Excellence In Broadcasting\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.rushlimbaugh.com\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":\"required name=search_term_string\"}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.rushlimbaugh.com\/daily\/2004\/12\/20\/masterful_bush_performance_with_press\/#webpage\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.rushlimbaugh.com\/daily\/2004\/12\/20\/masterful_bush_performance_with_press\/\",\"name\":\"Masterful Bush Performance with Press - The Rush Limbaugh Show\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.rushlimbaugh.com\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2011-05-19T07:00:21+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2011-05-19T07:00:21+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.rushlimbaugh.com\/#\/schema\/person\/911066e449df26406b107ca78cbbde0b\"},\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.rushlimbaugh.com\/daily\/2004\/12\/20\/masterful_bush_performance_with_press\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.rushlimbaugh.com\/daily\/2004\/12\/20\/masterful_bush_performance_with_press\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.rushlimbaugh.com\/daily\/2004\/12\/20\/masterful_bush_performance_with_press\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.rushlimbaugh.com\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Masterful Bush Performance with Press\"}]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.rushlimbaugh.com\/#\/schema\/person\/911066e449df26406b107ca78cbbde0b\",\"name\":\"admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.rushlimbaugh.com\/#personlogo\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/f18195e0073013fa0e16b040686c2924?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/f18195e0073013fa0e16b040686c2924?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"admin\"},\"url\":\"https:\/\/admin.rushlimbaugh.com\/daily\/author\/admin\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Masterful Bush Performance with Press - The Rush Limbaugh Show","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.rushlimbaugh.com\/daily\/2004\/12\/20\/masterful_bush_performance_with_press\/","twitter_card":"summary","twitter_title":"Masterful Bush Performance with Press - The Rush Limbaugh Show","twitter_description":"Did you see the president\u2019s press conference? Was that not masterful? He was just awesome in this press conference. He was just kicking butt out there, folks, not letting these reporters pigeonhole him. He had some great answers on Social Security and Don Rumsfeld, and we\u2019ll get to all that. We\u2019ve got the audio from […]","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"admin","Est. reading time":"38 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.rushlimbaugh.com\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.rushlimbaugh.com\/","name":"The Rush Limbaugh Show","description":"Excellence In Broadcasting","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.rushlimbaugh.com\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":"required name=search_term_string"}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.rushlimbaugh.com\/daily\/2004\/12\/20\/masterful_bush_performance_with_press\/#webpage","url":"https:\/\/www.rushlimbaugh.com\/daily\/2004\/12\/20\/masterful_bush_performance_with_press\/","name":"Masterful Bush Performance with Press - The Rush Limbaugh Show","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.rushlimbaugh.com\/#website"},"datePublished":"2011-05-19T07:00:21+00:00","dateModified":"2011-05-19T07:00:21+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.rushlimbaugh.com\/#\/schema\/person\/911066e449df26406b107ca78cbbde0b"},"breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.rushlimbaugh.com\/daily\/2004\/12\/20\/masterful_bush_performance_with_press\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.rushlimbaugh.com\/daily\/2004\/12\/20\/masterful_bush_performance_with_press\/"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.rushlimbaugh.com\/daily\/2004\/12\/20\/masterful_bush_performance_with_press\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.rushlimbaugh.com\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Masterful Bush Performance with Press"}]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.rushlimbaugh.com\/#\/schema\/person\/911066e449df26406b107ca78cbbde0b","name":"admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","@id":"https:\/\/www.rushlimbaugh.com\/#personlogo","inLanguage":"en-US","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/f18195e0073013fa0e16b040686c2924?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/f18195e0073013fa0e16b040686c2924?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"admin"},"url":"https:\/\/admin.rushlimbaugh.com\/daily\/author\/admin\/"}]}},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/admin.rushlimbaugh.com\/api\/wp\/v2\/posts\/22325"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/admin.rushlimbaugh.com\/api\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/admin.rushlimbaugh.com\/api\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/admin.rushlimbaugh.com\/api\/wp\/v2\/users\/25"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/admin.rushlimbaugh.com\/api\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=22325"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/admin.rushlimbaugh.com\/api\/wp\/v2\/posts\/22325\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/admin.rushlimbaugh.com\/api\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=22325"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/admin.rushlimbaugh.com\/api\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=22325"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/admin.rushlimbaugh.com\/api\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=22325"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}