Fuzzy math from Mr. Bush

According to George Bush, the Social Security program needs to be reformed (instead of eliminated, as I would prefer). From an official White House page:

• Doing nothing to fix our Social Security system will cost us, as well as our children and grandchildren, an estimated $10.4 trillion, according to the Social Security Trustees. The longer we wait to take action, the more difficult and expensive the changes will be.
• As a result of these demographic changes, the current system will not be able to afford to pay the benefits scheduled for our children and grandchildren without enormous payroll tax increases or huge benefit cuts.
• To ensure its long-term future, Social Security needs to be fixed soon.

And, as we all know, his primary solution consists of gradually phasing in "private" accounts into which workers may direct a percentage of the SS tax. (How the American sheeple think "freedom" means the mandatory obligation to participate in government managed retirement savings programs is beyond me.)

While the SS "crisis" must be addressed now, according to Mr. Bush, any change to the prescription drug benefit that was added to Medicare in the last term will be vetoed by the President. (How ironic would it be should President Bush use his first veto to block an attempt at curtailing federal spending?)

While the White House put out this press release which denies a huge rise in expected costs of the drug benefit over the next 10 years versus original WH estimates, Rick Santorum said this morning on Face the Nation that all numbers are just estimates, and that we should wait and see what happens after the program actually gets implemented next year. (Given his comments on this issue and his statement that he does not wish to see an end to the Social Security program, he is off my list of potential candidates for whom I would vote.)

From this official White House release:

• In December 2003, President Bush signed into law the Medicare Modernization Act, which the Congressional Budget Office scored as costing $395 billion over the 10 year period the President discussed (2004 to 2013).
• The Medicare Actuaries later estimated that the Act's 10 year cost for the period 2004-2013 would be $534 billion(only a 35% increase). The Congressional Budget Office continued to estimate $395 billion for the same time frame.
  
• The 2004-2013 CMS net estimate of Federal spending on the Medicare prescription drug benefit is virtually unchanged from previous estimates. (Which is meaningless because the program won't be implemented until 2006) Last year, CMS estimated the cost of the first 10 years of the program (2004-2013) at $511 billion, and this year, they believe that cost to be $518 billion.
  
• The 2006-2015 CMS net estimate of Federal spending on the Medicare prescription drug benefit is $723 billion.

So, in short, what we have here is a President who wants to privatize Social Security because it will be financially instable in 30-40 years, yet at the same time he categorically refuses to consider legislation which alters in any way his Medicare drug benefit program, even though it may become financially burdensome in the next 10 years.

The people who stand to gain the most from the current President's policies on Social Security reform and Medicare drug benefits are Wall Street and major pharmaceutical companies.

Sadly, I fear that Savage may have been onto something last week when he discussed a possible "agreement" between the Bushes and the Clintons. Think about it, should Hillary win in 2008, by 2012 when she comes up for reelection, a Bush or a Clinton would have been in the White House for 32 consecutive years.

Is it really that unfair to suggest that the Democrat party had no real candidates in 2004 because the Clintons have been running the DNC? Likewise, in 2008 when the GOP has no real big name to field at the top of its ticket, will it be that unfair to suggest the Bushes are at least partly responsible? After all, the GOP is rapidly splitting itself in half between the party loyalists, and those of principle who are disgusted by the current spending spree and the lack of border security.

Why has George Bush gone so far out of his way to sing the accolades of his predecessor, such as at the unveiling of President Clinton's portrait or the opening of his library?