President Bush said, “I think everyone should have ownership over their [Social Security] accounts.”

FACT: Bush’s Social Security plan is a far cry from the private ownership he’s touting, however. For example, instead of private plans that let Americans control their own investments, there are tight restrictions on which conservative stocks and bonds the public will be allowed to buy. And, as the New York Times reports, “the more restrictions there are, the harder it would be for people to achieve the outsized returns the administration has generally promoted to sell the public on private accounts.” [NYT, 2/6/05]

The President likes to believe that his judicial nominees are being opposed because the candidates are individuals who believe in the philosphy that a judge should simply interpret the law rather than make the law from the bench. However, Judge Priscilla Owen — who may be the judicial nominee that Senate conservatives use to trigger the nuclear option — is widely opposed because of her judicial activism. Upon her nomination, several Texas papers weighed in. Here are some excerpts:

Austin-American Statesman, 4/29/03: “[O]wen is so conservative that she places herself out of the broad mainstream of jurisprudence. She seems all too willing to bend the law to fit her views, rather than the reverse.”

The Houston Chronicle, 5/12/03: “Owen’s judicial record shows less interest in impartially interpreting the law than in pushing an agenda…a justice who has shown a clear preference for ruling to achieve a particular result rather than impartially interpreting the law. Anyone willing to look objectively at Owen’s record would be hard-pressed to deny that.”

San Antonio Express, 7/21/02: “Once competency is established, the most important qualification for a judge is commitment to following the law as it is written – regardless of personal philosophy. Justice Priscilla Owen is clearly competent, but her record demonstrates a results-oriented streak that belies supporters’ claims that she strictly follows the law…The Senate should not block a judicial nominee simply because he or she is more conservative or more liberal than the Senate’s majority party. It also should not engage in petty personal attacks. But concerns about Owen go to the heart of what makes a good judge…When a nominee has demonstrated a propensity to spin the law to fit philosophical beliefs, it is the Senate’s right – and duty – to reject that nominee.”

President Bush tonight:

Too often the temptation in Washington is to look at a major issue only in terms of whether it gives one political party an advantage over the other. Social Security is too important for politics as usual.

We agree. We only wish White House officials felt the same way:

“Bush and his aides rarely reveal the political underpinnings of their policy agenda. But their ambitions were evident last month, when a memo by a senior White House strategist concerning the emerging Social Security plan was leaked to the media. The memo, written by Peter Wehner, director of the White House Office of Strategic Initiatives, put the stakes in grand political terms, saying there would be enduring benefits for Republicans if the president’s plans succeeded and Democrats came out of the debate as the ‘party of the past.’ ‘For the first time in six decades, the Social Security battle is one we can win — and in doing so, we can help transform the political and philosophical landscape of the country,’ Wehner wrote.” [Los Angeles Times, 2/2/05]

“My administration is doing everything we can to make gasoline more affordable. … I applaud the House for passing a good energy bill.”
– President Bush, 4/28/05

“An energy bill wouldn’t change the price at the pump today. I know that and you know that. … I wish I could simply wave a magic wand and lower gas prices tomorrow.”
– President Bush, 4/20/05

President Bush just said:

I propose a system where benefits for low income workers will grow faster than those that are better off.

He is referring to something called “progressive price indexing.” Progressive price indexing means huge benefit cuts for the middle class. Here are the numbers from CBPP:

Progressive price indexing would reduce annual benefits for an average wage-earner who is 25 today and retires in 2045 by 16 percent…For an average-earner who retires in 2075, the benefit reduction would be 28 percent or $7,629 in today’s dollars…

President Bush said his plan will allow Americans to pass along their retirement funds to their children and grandchildren.

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]

It seems both the President and the American people believe that Social Security is a vital safety net for America’s seniors. Too bad, the Bush administation won’t let us know about this agreement. The White House recently changed a taxpayer-funded Social Security poll, removing “two statements that at least three-quarters of those polled had agreed with: ‘Social Security benefits play a major role in keeping many senior citizens out of poverty’ and ‘Social Security is the largest single source of income for most elderly Americans.’

Rhetoric:

There will be no price gauging at gas pumps in America. — President Bush, 4/28/05

Reality:

Exxon Mobil Co. reported a 45% surge in net income, while Royal Dutch/Shell Group’s earnings rose 40%, as persistently high oil prices fed the industrywide profit bonanza.

Here is how Bill Frist’s Senate website characterized his remarks on the Senate Floor today:

Frist Offers Proposal To End Judicial Nominations Impasse

Fortunately, the Associated Press wasn’t fooled:

Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist refused to budge Thursday on his demand that Democrats forgo filibusters against all of President Bush’s past or present nominees to federal appellate court benches or the Supreme Court.

AP gets it exactly right. Frist’s proposal is completely irrelevant to the controversy. Frist offered to extend the length of debate to 100 hours on federal appellate judges in exchange for the elimination of the judicial filibuster. One problem: no one ever asked to extend the length of debate. Frist would have done just as well offering his opponents a shiny nickel.