Bush has spent the last week barnstorming the country touting his plan to carve out private accounts from Social Security. He talked about it in his State of the Union address watched by 38 million people. He held events in North Dakota, Montana, Arkansas, Florida and Detroit. It was the subject of his radio address.

The result? People are still unconvinced. A new poll out today by USA Today found:

Support for Bush’s plan — creating individual investment accounts and reducing guaranteed benefits — is unchanged from January: 40% call it a good idea; 55% say it’s a bad one.

Bush is making the hard sell, but the American people aren’t buying.

Roll Call announced this morning that “the House Republican Conference will unveil today its latest prize for rewarding GOP lawmakers: the Ronald Reagan awards.” The honor “will be given to Members who excel at disseminating the party’s message on Social Security reform in their districts.”

There’s more to this story than the sad fact that conservatives now have to bribe lawmakers with made-up contest prizes to dredge up support for the president’s plan. What House Republicans are willfully ignoring: In 1983, President Reagan stepped away from privatization ideas to work with Congress to pass smaller, more manageable reforms which shored up the program. Washington Monthly’s Josh Green pointed out in 2003 that, during his time in office, Ronald Reagan “vastly expanded” the Social Security system. He signed into law a $165 billion legislative package which upped payroll taxes, brought new recipients into the system and “for the first time, taxed Social Security benefits, and did so in the most liberal way: only those of upper-income recipients.” It’s time for the right to stop trying to capitalize on The Gipper’s iconic status to maipulate conservatives into supporting President Bush’s plan.

[Printable PDF of this post HERE]

The White House and their deep-pocketed allies have launched a $35 million public relations effort to spread misinformation about President Bush’s Social Security Privatization scheme. This fact sheet will arm you with all the facts you’ll need to take them on.

FISCAL OUTLOOK

CLAIM: “By the year 2042, the entire system would be exhausted and bankrupt.” [President Bush, 2/2/05]

FACT: In 2042, enough new money will be coming in to pay between 73-80 percent of promised benefits. Even with this reduction, new retirees will still receive more money, in inflation-adjusted dollars, than today’s beneficiaries. [WP, 2/5/05]

CLAIM: “In the year 2018, for the first time ever, Social Security will pay out more in benefits than the government collects in payroll taxes.” [President Bush, 12/11/04]

FACT: “In 14 of the past 47 years, including 1975 to 1983, Social Security paid out more in benefits than the government collected in payroll.” [MSNBC, 1/14/05]

FACT: Under Bush’s plan, expenditures will begin to exceed revenues even earlier, in 2012. [New York Times, 2/4/05]

CLAIM: “Under the current system, today’s 30-year old worker will face a 27% benefit cut when he or she reaches normal retirement age.” [GOP Guide to Social Security Reform, 1/27/05]

FACT: According to the Congressional Budget Office, younger workers would receive better benefits from Social Security as it exists now, even if nothing changes, than from President Bush’s private accounts plan. [EPI, 2/05]

THE PRESIDENT’S PLAN / PRIVATE ACCOUNTS

CLAIM: “As we fix Social Security, we also have the responsibility to make the system a better deal for younger workers. And the best way to reach that goal is through voluntary personal retirement accounts.” [President Bush, 2/2/05]

FACT: Analysis of the plan so far does not prove the accounts would be a better deal for anyone not working on Wall Street. Workers who opt for the private accounts would recover forfeited benefits through their accounts only “if their investments realized a return equal to or greater than the 3 percent earned by Treasury bonds currently held by the Social Security system.” But CBO factors out stock market risks to assume a 3.3 percent rate of return. With 0.3 percent subtracted for expected administrative costs on the account, “the full amount in a worker’s account would be reduced dollar for dollar from his Social Security checks, for a net gain of zero.” [WP, 2/4/05]

CLAIM: “You’ll be able to pass along the money that accumulates in your personal account, if you wish, to your children or grandchildren.” [President Bush, 2/2/05]

FACT: Most lower-income workers will be required to purchase government lifetime annuities, financial instruments that provide a guaranteed monthly payment for life but that expire at death. Money in these annuities cannot be passed on to heirs. [NYT, 2/3/05] Read more

Any questions on how our comptroller general feels about the president’s inability to manage the deficit were answered early last week in his annual keynote address, in which he lambasted the state of the government’s checkbook. A few of the highlights:

I’m sad to say that since I last spoke on this issue here… in September 2003, our nation’s long-range fiscal imbalance has deteriorated significantly….

The American people need to realize that the fiscal choices being made in Washington today have profound consequences for the future of our country, and our children….

[W]hat does the federal government’s annual report say about the results that are being achieved with the taxpayer dollars being spent? The answer is not much!…

By continuing to run huge budget deficits, America is partially ceding control over its own destiny to others.

He noted that the first step towards curbing this trend is to “insist on truth and transparency in government operations” — something that the Bush administration has made nearly impossible because its financial record-keeping is so inadequate. The worst offenses stem from the Defense Department – where auditors report “serious financial management problems.” (Not to mention excessive waste.)

The Bush administration defends its “new formula” for the Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher Program by saying the new “dollar-based,” or “block grant” approach gives public housing authorities the flexibility to “adjust the program to the unique and changing needs of their community.”

Yesterday’s Providence Journal runs down how that new formula will affect one local community, Providence, Rhode Island:

“Last fiscal year, the Providence Housing Authroity issued 2,164 housing vouchers to its clients. The vouchers provided an average of $548 in rental assistance, or $14.2 million in reimbursement, according to Donna DeLaRosa of the housing authority.

Under the new formula, the vouchers will be worth an average $497 per household, which means the Housing Authority will serve only 1,895 households, O’Rourke said. The estimated reimbursement the PHA will receive from HUD for the next fiscal year will be about $12.4, million, which represents a decrease of about $1.8 million.

The change will eliminate 269 vouchers, officials estimate.”

The point here is that the new formula does just the opposite of what the White House says it does. It actually prevents PHA’s from responding to their community’s “unique and changing” needs. In Providence, both rent for housing and demand for vouchers are “on the rise.” Under the old formula, the federal government would reimburse the city for actual amounts paid in Section 8 leases. But the “new formula” (which actually went partially into affect as part of a 2005 Consolidated Appropriations Act) has forced the PHA to do two things: lower its average reimbursement and cut the number of overall vouchers.

An argument about the virtues of “block grants” would be relevant only if the money included in the grant was similar to what would be needed to fulfill even existing Section 8 commitments. But for the Bush administration, a “‘block grant” is “simply a cut by another name.”