[Weekly Compilation of Presidential Documents Volume 41, Number 13 (Monday, April 4, 2005)]
[Pages 523-527]
[Online from the Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]
<R04>
Interview With WHO Radio in Cedar Rapids, Iowa
March 30, 2005
Social Security
Jan Mickelson. The President probably wants to get in on this
conversation. [Laughter] It's an honor seeing you again, sir.
The President. How are you doing?
Mr. Mickelson. I'm doing great. You realize what a risk you've done,
latching on to this Social Security thing? You put our number one
Senator at grave risk. [Laughter] He had to burn his AARP card.
[Laughter] Do you realize what a cheap buzzard that guy is? [Laughter]
The President. No, I remember the ads with the lawnmower. [Laughter]
Mr. Mickelson. Well, see, he can't use his AARP discount anywhere
anymore. He had to burn that card.
The President. Well, you know, I appreciate the chairman. He's got
some political courage, which is necessary to take on tough problems.
It's pretty easy to ignore problems in politics. What's hard is to take
on a tough problem. And both Senator Grassley and I have dedicated
ourselves to taking on the tough problem of Social Security, and it is a
problem.
Mr. Mickelson. I was also warned by the Secret Service to keep the
microphone away from you in a diner situation--[laughter]--because you
have a karaoke gland that breaks out into Alan Jackson songs at the drop
of a hat. Try to restrain yourself this morning, sir. [Laughter]
[[Page 524]]
The President. Thank you very much. If you've ever heard me sing,
you know it's not an issue. [Laughter]
Mr. Mickelson. I think it was the minority leader, Harry Reid, said,
``Social Security is a real crisis that exists only in one place, in the
minds of Republicans.'' How would you respond to that?
The President. Well, I would say that there's been a lot of people
who aren't Republicans who've looked at this issue and have said the
world has changed and is changing and that we have a problem for younger
generations of Americans. The Social Security trust, for example--or the
trustees came out with a report recently that said, ``In 2017, the
Social Security trust goes into the negative. In 2041, it is flat
broke.''
And the reason why is because baby boomers, like me and you, are
getting ready to retire, and there's a lot of us, and we're living
longer.
Mr. Mickelson. What have you heard? I mean, I wasn't planning on
retiring. [Laughter]
The President. Well, this isn't forced retirement. [Laughter] You
get to be retirement age whether you want to or not.
Mr. Mickelson. I'm still in denial about that.
The President. Well, I'm afraid we're headed there. But there's a
lot of us, and we've been promised greater benefits, and there's fewer
workers. So you've got more people getting greater benefits, living
longer, and fewer people paying into the system. And it's just not going
to work. And so I think one of the things that's happened, in this 60-
day period that we set out to explain to the country we have a problem,
is that people are now beginning to understand there is a problem.
And the second thing that people are beginning to figure out is that
if you're 55 and over, you don't have anything to worry about; the
Government is going to pay the promised benefits. And that's an
important thing for people to understand. There's a lot of people in
Iowa counting on their Social Security check, and they just need to hear
the truth, and the truth is----
Mr. Mickelson. Five hundred and sixty-two thousand of us.
The President. That's a lot of you--not ``us.'' You're not one yet.
Mr. Mickelson. Well, there's 562,000 Iowans that receive some kind
of Social Security benefit, and 2 out of 5 Americans do.
The President. That's right, and that's why it's an important
program. That's why it's important to reassure those who receive a
check, nothing changes. The people who need to worry about this issue
are the younger Americans. They're the ones who are going to have to pay
enormous taxes or get enormous benefit cuts if this Government is not
willing to respond now. And so, to answer the question of the skeptics,
we do have a serious problem.
Mr. Mickelson. The red State division and blue State division
affects this debate extremely importantly and efficiently. The Democrats
are marketing their opposition to any kind of Social Security reform in
the following way. I was up on their web site, and this is how they
describe the nature of their opposition. And they have four different
categories--they say women, blacks, Hispanics, and the disabled all
receive a progressive return from Social Security. They get more than
they pay in. In essence, they say, you'd be an idiot, therefore, to go
along with any kind of reform, because they have it pretty good now, by
comparison, paying a little in--or less in than other wage earners. So
why should we vote for something that, in essence, we think might
disenfranchise us?
The President. Well, again, nothing changes if you're 55 years and
older. I mean, the progressivity in the system stays in the system.
Plus, you can make the system progressive for your younger workers. But
a younger worker, whether they live in a blue State or a red State,
ought to be wondering whether or not the Congress has got the will
necessary to fix this problem, because if we don't, the system starts
going into the red, negative, in 2017.
Do you realize, in 2027, the cost just to make good on the promises
is going to be over $200 billion a year? It gets worse every year from
2017 to 2041. And so there's a huge hole that can only be filled by
dramatic benefit reductions and/or payroll increases. It's estimated
that in order to fix the problem if we wait, it will--payroll taxes will
have to
[[Page 525]]
get up to 18 percent. And that's unsatisfactory, as far as I'm
concerned. And younger workers, blue State, red State, need to worry
about this problem.
Now, older Americans do not. And I keep saying that, because I know
there's some propaganda out there that says to older Americans, ``You
know, old Grassley and Bush are going to take away your check.'' Well,
I've heard this before, every time I've run for office. Nothing changes.
The Government will keep its promise for those of us over 55 years old.
It's younger people. This is a generational issue, Jan, because many
grandparents are now beginning to realize they're going to get their
check, and they're starting to ask the question, ``What about my
grandchildren; what are you going to do about the grandchildren,''
because this is a serious problem.
Mr. Mickelson. I really appreciate the phrase you use, the
``ownership society.''
The President. Yes.
Mr. Mickelson. That really works. Now, how do we get the people who
view themselves as recipients to see themselves as potential owners, so
they don't feel threatened by a transformation of the system that you
have in mind?
The President. Yes, well, first of all, you're referring to the
personal savings account aspect of a solution. And the reason I believe
it's important to encourage--or to allow younger workers, if they so
choose, to set aside some of their own money in a personal savings
account is threefold. One, they will get a better rate of return on
their money than they're going to get if the Government holds it for
them. In other words, in a conservative mix of bonds and stocks held
over time, the rate of return on the money, the growth of the money, the
fact that it's going to be growing in a compounded way is going to be
greater.
Mr. Mickelson. Even if they haven't paid in as much, initially, to
push them into that progressive recipient category in which they now
exist?
The President. Well, you can do both. First of all, it's more
progressive, by the way, if you get a greater rate of return on your
money than if you don't. But you can also make sure the benefits that
end up being determined by Congress--in other words, the benefits that
the Government can afford--they're progressive in nature as well.
But progressivity really depends upon how the benefit structure is
decided by Congress. We've got some money for some benefits; we just
don't have enough to pay the promises made to younger workers. And the
best way to allow a younger worker to more approximate that which the
Government has promised is to let them earn a better rate of return on
their money.
Secondly, I like the idea of somebody owning something. I mean,
there is kind of this mindset that only a certain investor class can
manage their own money. I think that's a preposterous assumption. I
think everybody ought to be encouraged to manage their own money.
And thirdly, we do this, Jan--this is a very important point--this
isn't a novel idea. Federal workers get to do this in what's called--in
the Federal employee program, retirement program. They get to take some
of their own money and set it aside so they get a better rate of return
than that which the Government can get for them. And Senator Grassley's
employees get to do that; people working for the Agriculture Department
get to do it. My attitude, if it's good enough for Federal employees, it
ought to be good enough for younger workers.
Mr. Mickelson. Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan keeps using
another very powerful word describing much of our social safety net,
``unsustainable.''
The President. Yes.
Mr. Mickelson. We can't do it. Demographically, as you mentioned
earlier, we aren't reproducing ourselves.
The President. Right.
Medicare/HSAs/Tax Reform
Mr. Mickelson. The same logic that you applied aptly to Social
Security also applies to our medical delivery system.
The President. That's right.
Mr. Mickelson. Can we also move to the ownership concept in that, in
medical IRAs, and make those universal, maybe using medical IRA
vouchers? And how about using the earned-income tax that lower income
people get and empower a savings account, so they
[[Page 526]]
get an ownership concept using their money in that regard?
The President. That's a very good point. As a matter of fact, the
Senator and I worked on Medicare reform. We wanted the current system to
work better for those people who are going to get--that are on Medicare.
We wanted--for example, I think there's a lot of benefit to have a
prescription drug plan available in Medicare because a lot of people
will be able to avoid major surgery by taking prescription drugs. In
other words, Medicare would pay for heart surgery but not a dime for the
prescription drugs that might prevent the heart surgery from being
needed in the first place. So we modernized Medicare and, by the way,
took care of rural hospitals in Iowa as we did so.
Secondly, though, in that bill is the notion of health savings
accounts, which provides an IRA-type approach, as you mentioned, to
encourage people to set aside money on a tax-free basis so they get to
make the decisions for their own health care--in other words, own their
own health care plan. And it's a great idea that is now beginning to
take hold with a lot of small businesses and a lot of employees for
small businesses.
Thirdly, I've consistently proposed, Jan, that we have tax credits
for the working poor people so that they, themselves, can go in the
marketplace and own their own account. And yes, so to answer your
question, absolutely, we can extend ownership.
Mr. Mickelson. So they earn--they keep the time value of their own
money.
The President. Precisely.
Mr. Mickelson. That's the chief weakness of the current system.
The President. On a tax-free basis, with the HSAs, by the way.
Social Security
Mr. Mickelson. The birth-dearth issue that you made reference to,
that's the elephant in the room. We have to address that. Our culture is
not--it's not the first time this has happened. I was reading--Teddy
Roosevelt addressed this in the early part of the century, dealing with
the birth dearth in the last century, and he saw that that generation of
Americans were not reproducing themselves. And do you want to hear a
really snotty quote from Teddy Roosevelt? He said----
The President. I don't have much choice. [Laughter]
Mr. Mickelson. Yes, you do. You have the Executive order. [Laughter]
It says, ``If you do not believe in your own stock enough to wish to
see the stock kept up, then you're not good Americans, and you're not
patriots. I, for one, would not mourn your extinction, and in such
event, I would welcome the advent of a new race that would take your
place, because you will have shown that you are not even fit to cumber
the ground.''
So that's pretty--that's a bully pulpit.
The President. He was a colorful person. [Laughter] That's what I've
been doing, using the bully pulpit over the last weeks to remind people
we have a problem. And it's easy in politics to ignore problems. It's
just easy to say, ``Well, there's no problem.'' But this is a serious
problem for younger generations of Americans, and I believe there is a
duty as the President--and fortunately, Senator Grassley believes
there's a duty as the chairman of the Finance Committee in the Senate--
to take on problems and not pass them on. See, the easy route is to say,
``Well, we really don't have a problem.'' But what's going to end up
happening is, in 2017, people are going to show up to work, and they're
going to realize their payroll taxes have gone up significantly to pay
for promises that the Government has made.
And so I'm saying to people, now is the time to fix it. And I think
there's a political price for not getting involved in the process. I
think there's a political price for saying, ``It's not a problem. I'm
going to stay away from the table.'' So in my State of the Union Address
I called upon Members of Congress, both parties, to bring good ideas
forward.
Mr. Mickelson. Has the third rail moved?
The President. I think it has. I think you'd made a mistake not
addressing Social Security. I think the American people, when they
figure out how significant this problem is--and they're beginning to
figure it out--are then going to demand, from both Republicans and
Democrats, leadership.
And I am--I love this--I love taking on big issues, because I think
that's my job. I
[[Page 527]]
think that's why the people of the country put me in office. They expect
a President to lead, and they expect a chairman of the Finance Committee
to lead as well. And fortunately, the good State of Iowa has got such a
man in Charles Grassley. I'm looking forward to working with him on this
issue.
Mr. Mickelson. Can I expect that in an upcoming press conference
that you're attending that you will get up and address the Nation and
tell the population of the United States, ``Get out there and reproduce,
or don't cumber the ground?'' [Laughter]
The President. No, you can't expect that. [Laughter]
Mr. Mickelson. ``Get off the--have some more kids or get off the
planet.'' [Laughter]
The President. You can expect me to keep talking about Social
Security. [Laughter] You can expect it because now is the time to solve
this problem. And I repeat to the grandparents out there that if we do
not act, your grandchildren are going to be saddled with a huge burden.
This Government has made promises it cannot keep. It'll keep the
promises to those of us over 55 years old, but it has made promises to a
lot of younger Americans it cannot keep, and now is the time to solve
the problem.
And I'm going to keep working with Members of Congress from both
political parties to do our duty. And I like traveling the country. I
like coming to the great State of Iowa--been here quite a few times and
may have to come back to keep pounding on the issue, but it is the right
thing to do, which is to address problems.
Mr. Mickelson. Mr. President, thank you for visiting Iowa.
The President. Thanks for coming over.
Mr. Mickelson. Thank you for visiting us. Senator Grassley, thank
you for gracing us.
Senator Grassley. Pleasure to be with you.
Mr. Mickelson. Thank you for being here.
Note: The interview began at 11:18 a.m. at the Spring House Family
Restaurant and was broadcast live on the ``Mickelson in the Morning''
program.