Just POlitics

Text of President Bush’s State of the Union Address:
LINK

“Moderate” Republicans react

The Washington Post covers the moderate Republicans reaction to the State of the Union. Those covered include: Sens. Olympia J. Snowe (Maine), Susan Collins (Maine), George V. Voinovich (Ohio) and Mike DeWine (Ohio).

White House nails Washington Post lies

THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the Press Secretary
(Great Falls, Montana)

____________________________________________________________________________________ For Immediate Release February 3, 2005

SETTING THE RECORD STRAIGHT
Participants get 100% of Their Personal Retirement Accounts, Both Principal and Interest

Myth: Jonathan Weisman's Washington Post Story today (p A13), includes the headline that "Participants would Forfeit Part of Accounts' Profits," which is flat wrong. The article says workers who opt for personal accounts "would ultimately get to keep only the investment returns that exceed the rate of return that the money would have accrued in the traditional system." This statement, unfortunately, is also flat wrong. Both the headline and this assertion are completely inaccurate. The White House is seeking a correction from the Washington Post.

Reality: Under President Bush's plan, participants would get EVERY SINGLE PENNY OF THEIR RETIREMENT ACCOUNTS -- BOTH the PRINCIPAL AND INTEREST.

Myth: The WP story suggests that President Bush's proposed personal retirement accounts actually benefits the Federal Government more than the account holder, by providing a "claw back." A "claw back" is typically a feature of a plan where the government guarantees a certain combined benefit from the traditional system and the personal account. Under such a plan, the better your account does, the less you get from the government. Therefore, the gains in the accounts are "clawed back."

Reality: The President's plan for personal retirement accounts does not have a "claw back." Under the President's plan, you, not the government, get all the gains in your personal retirement account. The amount you receive from the government is NOT reduced if your personal account does well. The better your account does, the better off you are.

Here are the facts:

* President Bush's plan allows you to make a decision to put your money in a different kind of prudent investment, with the potential for receiving higher pay-outs.

* For example, a worker who decides against taking a personal account might, in the future, get $15,000 annually in benefits from the traditional system, reformed to be permanently sustainable.

* Another young worker could choose to invest in a personal retirement account. In exchange for the right to get the account, he gives up benefits from the traditional system. For example, he might give up one-third of those future government benefits, and be entitled to receive $10,000 annually from the traditional system.

* A personal retirement account would belong entirely to the worker. If the account earns a 3% real rate of return - the worker would be right back where he started - at $15,000 of combined benefits per year.

* A worker could earn a higher return through his personal account investments. The Social Security Actuary assumes he will invest in a conservative mix of stocks, corporate bonds, and government securities that would result in a 4.6% real rate of return. In this case, the account would be large enough to provide about $7,000 per year of benefits, so he would have a combined future benefit of $17,000. His combined benefit would be $2,000 per year higher than had he not chosen the account.

* A worker's traditional benefit would be affected by the amount of investment in a personal account because some of his payroll taxes are flowing into the account, rather than into the traditional Social Security system. His government benefit would not, however, be affected by the investment performance of the personal account, as was suggested in today's Washington Post.

* Note that if he puts all of his account into safe government securities, he can expect an average 3% real rate of return (the break-even rate). In addition, the worker will own all the funds in the account. Even if the worker were only to break even financially, he would be better off because of his ownership rights:

         If he were to die before retirement age, he would have an asset to pass on to his loved ones.

         If he were to divorce, his account would be marital property.

         And if future policymakers were to change government-provided benefits, his account balance would be immune from those changes.

Remember:

* Personal retirement accounts help make Social Security better for younger workers. Personal retirement accounts give younger workers the chance to receive a higher rate of return from sound, long-term investing of a portion of their payroll taxes than they receive under the current system.

* Personal retirement accounts provide ownership and control. Personal retirement accounts give younger workers the opportunity to own an asset and watch it grow over time.

* Personal retirement accounts would be entirely voluntary. At any time, a worker could "opt in" by making a one-time election to put a portion of his or her payroll taxes into a personal retirement account.

* Workers would have the flexibility to choose from several different low-cost, broad-based investment funds and would have the opportunity to adjust investment allocations periodically, but would not be allowed to move back and forth between personal retirement accounts and the traditional system. If, after workers choose the account, they decide they want only the benefits the current system would give them, they can leave their money invested in government bonds like those the Social Security system invests in now.

* Those workers who do not elect to create a personal retirement account would continue to draw benefits from the traditional Social Security system, reformed to be permanently sustainable.

RNC nails Reid/Pelosi misstatements

Rep. Nancy Pelosi and Sen. Harry Reid gave the response to President Bush's State of the Union Address. Several inaccurate or misleading statements were made by them. Below are the Republican National Committee's findings [LINK to original].

FACT CHECK: DEMOCRAT STATE
OF THE UNION RESPONSE
The Democrat Duo Of Obstruction Responds To
State Of The Union Address With Misstatements And Inaccuracies
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Sen. Harry Reid’s (D-NV) And Rep. Nancy Pelosi’s (D-CA) 10 Most Inaccurate Or Misleading Statements:

1. Reid Falsely Charges That Personal Accounts Would Guarantee A Benefit Cut Of 40% Or More. “And that’s why we so strongly disagree with the President’s plan to privatize Social Security. Let me share with you why I believe the President’s plan is so dangerous. There’s a lot we can do to improve American’s retirement security, but it’s wrong to replace the guaranteed benefit that Americans have earned with a guaranteed benefit cut of forty percent or more. Make no mistake, that’s exactly what President Bush is proposing.” (Sen. Reid and Rep. Pelosi, “Democratic Response To State Of The Union Address,” Press Release, 2/2/05)

• FactCheck.Org Confirms President Bush’s Plan Will Not Cut Benefits For Those At Or Near Retirement. “In fact, Bush has said over and over he won’t cut benefits for anybody currently getting them, or near retirement.” (FactCheck.Org Website, “Liberal Group’s Ad Falsely Claims Bush Plan Would Cut Benefits 46 Percent,” www.factcheck.org   , 2/1/05)

• For Those 55 And Older, Nothing Will Change. President Bush: “I have a message for every American who is 55 or older: Do not let anyone mislead you. For you, the Social Security system will not change in any way.” (President George W. Bush, State Of The Union Address, As Prepared For Delivery, Washington, DC, 2/2/05)

• Personal Accounts Will Be Voluntary. “[I]ndividuals [will] have the option of not taking a personal account and paying the benefits that the traditional system would be able to pay.” (Senior Administration Official, Press Briefing, 2/2/05)

2. Pelosi: “In Our New Partnership For America’s Future, House Democrats Have Made A Commitment … To Honor Our Veterans And Their Families By Making Sure They Have The Health Care And Benefits They Have Earned.” (Sen. Reid and Rep. Pelosi, “Democratic Response To State Of The Union Address,” Press Release, 2/2/05)

• FactCheck.org: President Has Increased Veterans Funding. “In Bush’s first three years funding for the Veterans Administration increased 27%. And if Bush’s 2005 budget is approved, funding for his full four-year term will amount to an increase of 37.6%. In the eight years of the Clinton administration the increase was 31.7% Those figures include mandatory spending for such things as payments to veterans for service-connected disabilities, over which Congress and presidents have little control. But Bush has increased the discretionary portion of veterans funding even more than the mandatory portion has increased. Discretionary funding under Bush is up 30.2%. By any measure, veterans funding is going up faster under Bush than under Clinton.” (“Funding For Veterans Up 27%, But Democrats Call It A Cut,” FactCheck.org Website, www.factcheck.org   , 2/18/04, Accessed 8/6/04)

• Funding For Veterans Health Care Has Increased Over 40 Percent Since President Bush Took Office. “The president’s budget requests $29.5 billion for VA’s medical care, an increase of $1.17 billion, or 4.1 percent, over the 2004 level and more than 40 percent above the level in 2001.” (Department Of Veterans Affairs, “Administration Seeks $67.7 Billion For VA In 2005,” Press Release, 2/2/04)

3. Reid States Plan Would “Gamble” With “Social Security’s Guarantee.” “It’s more like Social Security roulette. Democrats are all for giving Americans more of a say and more choices when it comes to their retirement savings. But that doesn’t mean taking Social Security’s guarantee and gambling with it. And that’s coming from a Senator who represents Las Vegas.” (Sen. Reid and Rep. Pelosi, “Democratic Response To State Of The Union Address,” Press Release, 2/2/05)

• Personal Accounts Are Not A Gamble. “We will make sure the money can only go into a conservative mix of bonds and stock funds. We will make sure that your earnings are not eaten up by hidden Wall Street fees. We will make sure there are good options to protect your investments from sudden market swings on the eve of your retirement. We will make sure a personal account can’t be emptied out all at once, but rather paid out over time, as an addition to traditional Social Security benefits.” (President George W. Bush, State Of The Union Address, As Prepared For Delivery, Washington, DC, 2/2/05)

4. Reid Implied President Bush Is Not Concerned With National Debt. “[A]fter we worked so hard to eliminate the deficit, his policies have added trillions to the debt – in effect, a ‘birth tax’ of $36,000 on every child that is born.” (Sen. Reid and Rep. Pelosi, “Democratic Response To State Of The Union Address,” Press Release, 2/2/05)

• But In State Of The Union, President Bush Promised To Cut Deficit In Half By 2009, Cut Wasteful Programs, And Keep Spending Increases Under Rate Of Inflation. “[N]ext week I will send you a budget that holds the growth of discretionary spending below inflation, makes tax relief permanent, and stays on track to cut the deficit in half by 2009. My budget substantially reduces or eliminates more than 150 government programs that are not getting results, or duplicate current efforts, or do not fulfill essential priorities. The principle here is clear: a taxpayer dollar must be spent wisely, or not at all.” (President George W. Bush, State Of The Union Address, As Prepared For Delivery, Washington, DC, 2/2/05)

5. Reid: “Do We Believe That Big Corporations With Powerful Lobbyists Should Get Special Favors And That The Wealthiest Should Get Special Tax Breaks?” (Sen. Reid and Rep. Pelosi, “Democratic Response To State Of The Union Address,” Press Release, 2/2/05)

• But Reid’s Own Family Gets Plenty Of Special Favors – Reid Introduced Legislation That Benefited Sons’ Firm. “What Reid did not explain was that [The Clark County Conservation of Public Land and Natural Resources Act of 2002] promised a cavalcade of benefits to real estate developers, corporations and local institutions that were paying hundreds of thousands of dollars in lobbying fees to his sons’ and son-in-law’s firms, federal lobbyist reports show. … Other provisions were intended to benefit a real estate development headed by a senior partner in the Nevada law firm that employs all four of Reid’s sons…” (Chuck Neubauer and Richard T. Cooper, “In Nevada, The Name To Know Is Reid,” Los Angeles Times, 6/23/03)

6. Pelosi: “I Have Seen That Sacrifice Up Close. I’ve Met With Our Troops In Iraq And Afghanistan. And I’ve Visited Our Wounded In Military Hospitals Here And Overseas. Our Troops Not Only Defend Us, They Inspire Us. They Remind Us Of Our Responsibility To Build A Future Worthy Of Their Sacrifice.” (Sen. Reid and Rep. Pelosi, “Democratic Response To State Of The Union Address,” Press Release, 2/2/05)

Pelosi Was Against War/Troops:

• Pelosi Has Said She Does Not Even Consider War On Terror A Real War. “‘I don’t really consider ourselves at war,’ Pelosi said. ‘We’re in a struggle against terrorism throughout the world, and we stand with the president in that fight.’ But that does not bestow ‘some kind of mantle on the president that he can’t be subject to criticism.’” (Miles Benson, “Democrats Show Greater Audacity In Criticizing Bush,” Newhouse News Service, 5/6/02)

• Pelosi Voted Against Use Of Force In Iraq. (H. J. Res. 114, CQ Vote #455: Passed 296-133: R 215-6; D 81-126; I 0-1, 10/10/02, Pelosi Voted Nay)

• Pelosi Voted Against Both Passage And Conference Report On Bill Appropriating $87 Billion In Supplemental Spending For Military Operations And Reconstruction In Iraq And Afghanistan. (H.R. 3289, CQ Vote #562: Passed 303-125: R 220-6; D 83-118; I 0-1, 10/17/03, Pelosi Voted Nay; H.R. 3289, CQ Vote #601: Adopted 298-121: R 216-5; D 82-115; I 0-1, 10/31/03, Pelosi Voted Nay)

7. Pelosi: “Despite The Administration’s Rhetoric, Airline Cargo Still Goes Uninspected, Shipping Containers Go Unscreened, And Our Railroads And Power Plants Are Not Secure. Police Officers And Firefighters Across America Have Pleaded For The Tools They Need To Prevent Or Respond To An Attack, But The Administration Still Hasn’t Delivered For Our First Responders.” (Sen. Reid and Rep. Pelosi, “Democratic Response To State Of The Union Address,” Press Release, 2/2/05)

• The President Initiated The Container Security Initiative (CSI) To Screen High-Risk Containers At Foreign Ports, Before They Ever Get To The United States. (www.dhs.gov/dhspublic/interapp/press_release/press_release_0178.xml; http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/02/20040205-5.html)

• One Hundred Percent Of Passengers And Passenger Bags Are Now Screened By TSA. (www.tsa.gov/public/display?content= 090005198002d52d;www.dhs.gov/dhspublic/interapp/editorial/editorial_0391.xml)

• The President’s 2005 Budget Increases Port Security 628 Percent Over 2001. The President has called for $1.9 billion in funding in 2005 to increase the security of our ports. That is a $224 million (13 percent) increase over 2004, and a $1.6 billion increase (628 percent) over funding levels from President Clinton’s last budget. (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/02/20040205-5.html)

• All Containers Are Screened, 100 Percent Of High-Risk Containers Are Physically Inspected. (Testimony By Robert C. Bonner Before The House Ways And Means Committee, Trade Subcommittee, On The FY 2005 Customs Service Reauthorization, 6/17/2004)

• President Bush Has Increased Funding For Firefighters By 400 Percent. President Bush’s FY 2005 budget request allocates $500 million for Assistance to Firefighter Grants - a 400 percent increase over funding levels when he came into office. (President’s FY 2005 Budget Appendix, pg. 471; United States Fire Administration, Assistance to Firefighters Grant Awards FY 2001, at http://www.usfa.fema.gov/fire-service/grants/afgp/awards/2001awards/01awards.shtm )

• President Bush Has Increased First Responder Funding By 680 Percent. President Clinton’s last budget (FY 2001) provided $456 million for state and local funding. President Bush’s FY 2005 budget request allocates $3.561 billion for states and local first responders. That is a $3.1 billion increase (680 percent) in funding levels for President Clinton’s last budget. (President’s FY 2005 Budget, Pg. 163)

8. Reid: “The Bush Plan Would Take Our Already Record High $4.3 Trillion National Debt And Put Us Another $2 Trillion In The Red.” (Sen. Reid and Rep. Pelosi, “Democratic Response To State Of The Union Address,” Press Release, 2/2/05)

• Personal Accounts Would Not Add To National Debt; They “Would Have A Net Neutral Effect On The Fiscal Situation Of The Social Security And On The Federal Government.” “With respect to the fiscal effects of the personal accounts, in a long-term sense … would not create a net new cost for the system. To the extent that people put money in these accounts and invest in these accounts, there would be a corresponding reduction in the government’s liabilities from the Social Security system that is equal in present value to the money placed in the personal accounts up front. So in a long-term sense, the personal accounts would have a net neutral effect on the fiscal situation of the Social Security and on the federal government.” (Senior Administration Official, Press Briefing, 2/2/05)

9. Pelosi: “We Must Not Be Lulled Into A False Sense Of Confidence By The Administration’s Claim That A Large Number Of Security Personnel Have Been Trained. It Simply Hasn’t Happened, But It Must.” (Sen. Reid and Rep. Pelosi, “Democratic Response To State Of The Union Address,” Press Release, 2/2/05)

• “Iraq Had Some 125,000 Trained Security And Military Personnel As Of Jan. 19, According To U.S. Figures … The Figures Include Police And Iraqi National Guard As Well As Army, Navy, Air Force, Special Operations And Rapid-Response Units.” (John J. Lumpkin, “Buildup Of Iraqi Security Forces Far From Complete,” The Associated Press, 1/31/05)

10. Reid: “My Life Has Been Very Different From What I Imagined Growing Up, But No Matter How Far I’ve Traveled, Searchlight Is Still The Place I Go Back To And Still The Place I Call Home.” (Sen. Reid and Rep. Pelosi, “Democratic Response To State Of The Union Address,” Press Release, 2/2/05)

• “[Reid] Is Soaking Up City Life In A DC Ritz-Carlton Condo That He And His Wife, Landra, Bought In 2001 For $750,000.” (“Where Bush’s Brain Lives,” Washingtonian, 1/05)

Mother to Diane Sawyer: hug was not ‘staged’

Thank you, NewsMax.com, for carrying this article [LINK}:

The mother of a Marine who died liberating Iraq and who provided the emotional high point of Wednesday night's State of the Union Address when she hugged a grateful Iraqi voter sitting in the gallery, denied Thursday morning that the unforgettable episode had been staged, as several left-leaning commentators have alleged.

Appearing with her husband Bill on ABC's "Good Morning America," Janet Norwood, mother of Sgt. Byron Norwood, was asked whether the embrace was pre-planned by host Diane Sawyer. The exchange went like this:

SAWYER: It was such a moving moment for everyone, including clearly the president, in the room last night. Safia al-Suhail, whose father had been killed under Saddam, and who had held up her finger with ink on it to show she had voted for the first time in her life, was sitting in front of you.

First, did you know she would be there? And did you know you were going to lean over [and hug her]?

MRS. NORWOOD: No. We had no idea who was going to be there. We met as we went in the door [to the gallery]. She turned around and introduced herself. I asked her if her finger was purple and she held it up and showed me that it was. And I just grabbed her finger.

It would have made our son so proud to see the success of elections in Iraq.

MR. NORWOOD: We didn't know about her dad until something was mentioned. But it certainly enhanced our opinion of her. She was a very, very fine person.

MRS. NORWOOD: She thanked us for our son's sacrifice and made sure we knew that the people of Iraq were grateful for the sacrifices that were made, not just by our son, but by all of them.

SAWYER: And what did you say to her?

MRS. NORWOOD: I just told her how happy we were that the elections were successful and told her that our son would have been pleased.

MR. NORWOOD: Byron really believed that the Iraqi people deserved a chance to take ownership of the concept of freedom. And they certainly proved that they can do that now. So he would have been very pleased. [END OF EXCERPT]