|
E-mail this page to a friend!
Complete Text
Bush Proposes Social Security System that Tilts
Toward Poorest Retirees
President does not add much to his Social Security
proposal but enough to stir the pot
 April
28, 2005 In a news conference during prime time tonight, President
Bush revealed a little more about his strategy for making changes to
Social Security and reaffirmed his support for private investment
accounts. Although still lacking details, tonight the President said he
would favor a system that tilted Social Security benefit payments in the
future toward the lowest income retirees. He suggested this might be the
bottom 30 percent. (Below is the text of the speech and question and
answer session with Social Security highlighted in yellow)
"If you work hard and pay into Social Security your
entire life, you will not retire into poverty," he said.
According to the Associated Press, while Bush was
still speaking White House officials handed out written material saying
the type of change he had in mind could be accomplished with a "sliding
scale benefit formula." That would mean lower payments for future
retirees of middle and upper incomes than they are currently guaranteed
a fact Bush himself did not mention in his 60-minute session with
reporters.
Bush's proposal would let benefits grow as already
promised for the poorest Americans but cut promised benefits for those
making more. The proposal marked the first time Bush has offered any
specific recommendation to change the retirement system since he
proposed allowing younger workers to divert some of their taxes into
private retirement accounts, said Knight Ridder News Service.
Hoping to jump-start negotiations with lawmakers
and win over skeptical Americans, Bush said he wanted to ensure that
"future generations receive benefits equal to or greater than the
benefits today's seniors get" but offered no details. A Bush aide said
later that future benefits under this proposal would continue to grow
but at a slower pace, said the report by Reuters..
Democrats were quick to respond. House Democratic
Leader Nancy Pelosi and Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid tonight
released the following statement on President Bush's Social Security
plan:
"Democrats have traveled across the country to hear
from the American people on how we can strengthen Social Security for
current and future generations. What we heard was overwhelmingly clear
-- Social Security has meant retirement and economic security for
millions of American families.
"As the President completes his own 60-day tour, we
had hoped that he would take the concerns of the American people to
heart, and abandon his misleading plan to privatize Social Security. His
privatization plan would slash guaranteed Social Security benefits and
burden future generations with trillions of dollars of new debt largely
borrowed by China and Japan.
"All the President did tonight was confirm that he
will pay for his risky privatization scheme by cutting the benefits of
middle-class seniors. President Bush cannot escape the fact that
privatization will weaken Social Security at a time we should be
strengthening it.
"Democrats stand ready to strengthen Social
Security on a bipartisan basis so that all Americans receive the
guaranteed benefits they have earned. We urge the President to begin
considering proposals that strengthen Social Security in a way that does
not gut benefits for middle-class families and does not place retirees
at the mercy of the stock market."
Press
Conference of the President
The East Room
8:01 P.M. EDT
THE PRESIDENT: Good
evening. Tonight I will discuss two vital priorities for the American
people, and then I'd be glad to answer some of your questions.
Millions of American
families and small businesses are hurting because of higher gasoline
prices. My administration is doing everything we can to make gasoline
more affordable. In the near-term, we will continue to encourage oil
producing nations to maximize their production. Here at home, we'll
protect consumers. There will be no price gouging at gas pumps in
America.
We must address the
root causes that are driving up gas prices. Over the past decade,
America's energy consumption has been growing about 40 times faster than
our energy production. That means we're relying more on energy produced
abroad. To reduce our dependence on foreign sources of energy, we must
take four key steps. First, we must better use technology to become
better conservers of energy. Secondly, we must find innovative and
environmentally sensitive ways to make the most of our existing energy
resources, including oil, natural gas, coal and safe, clean nuclear
power.
Third, we must
develop promising new sources of energy, such as hydrogen, ethanol or
biodiesel. Fourth, we must help growing energy consumers overseas, like
China and India, apply new technologies to use energy more efficiently,
and reduce global demand of fossil fuels. I applaud the House for
passing a good energy bill. Now the Senate needs to act on this urgent
priority. American consumers have waited long enough. To help reduce our
dependence on foreign sources of energy, Congress needs to get an energy
bill to my desk by this summer so I can sign it into law.
Congress also needs
to address the challenges facing Social
Security. I've traveled the country to talk with the American
people. They understand that Social
Security is headed for serious financial trouble, and they expect
their leaders in Washington to address the problem.
Social Security worked fine
during the last century, but the math has changed. A generation of baby
boomers is getting ready to retire. I happen to be one of them. Today
there are about 40 million retirees receiving benefits; by the time all
the baby boomers have retired, there will be more than 72 million
retirees drawing Social Security
benefits. Baby boomers will be living longer and collecting benefits
over long retirements than previous generations. And Congress has
ensured that their benefits will rise faster than the rate of inflation.
In other words,
there's a lot of us getting ready to retire who will be living longer
and receiving greater benefits than the previous generation. And to
compound the problem, there are fewer people paying into the system. In
1950, there were 16 workers for every beneficiary; today there are 3.3
workers for every beneficiary; soon there will be two workers for every
beneficiary.
These changes have
put Social Security on the path
to bankruptcy. When the baby boomers start retiring in three years,
Social Security will start
heading toward the red. In 2017, the system will start paying out more
in benefits than it collects in payroll taxes. Every year after that the
shortfall will get worse, and by 2041,
Social Security will be bankrupt.
Franklin Roosevelt
did a wonderful thing when he created
Social Security. The system has meant a lot for a lot of people.
Social Security has provided a
safety net that has provided dignity and peace of mind for millions of
Americans in their retirement. Yet there's a hole in the safety net
because Congresses have made promises it cannot keep for a younger
generation.
As we fix
Social Security, some things
won't change: Seniors and people with disabilities will get their
checks; all Americans born before 1950 will receive the full benefits.
Our duty to save
Social Security begins with
making the system permanently solvent, but our duty does not end there.
We also have a responsibility to improve
Social Security, by directing
extra help to those most in need and by making it a better deal for
younger workers. Now, as Congress begins work on legislation, we must be
guided by three goals. First, millions of Americans depend on
Social Security checks as a
primary source of retirement income, so we must keep this promise to
future retirees, as well. As a matter of fairness, I propose that future
generations receive benefits equal to or greater than the benefits
today's seniors get.
Secondly, I believe a
reform system should protect those who depend on
Social Security the most. So I
propose a Social Security system
in the future where benefits for low-income workers will grow faster
than benefits for people who are better off. By providing more generous
benefits for low-income retirees, we'll make this commitment: If you
work hard and pay into Social Security
your entire life, you will not retire into poverty. This reform would
solve most of the funding challenges facing
Social Security. A variety of
options are available to solve the rest of the problem, and I will work
with Congress on any good-faith proposal that does not raise the payroll
tax rate or harm our economy. I know we can find a solution to the
financial problems of Social Security
that is sensible, permanent, and fair.
Third, any reform of
Social Security must replace the
empty promises being made to younger workers with real assets, real
money. I believe the best way to achieve this goal is to give younger
workers the option, the opportunity if they so choose, of putting a
portion of their payroll taxes into a voluntary personal retirement
account. Because this money is saved and invested, younger workers would
have the opportunity to receive a higher rate of return on their money
than the current Social Security
system can provide.
The money from a
voluntary personal retirement account would supplement the check one
receives from Social Security.
In a reformed Social Security
system, voluntary personal retirement accounts would offer workers a
number of investment options that are simple and easy to understand. I
know some Americans have reservations about investing in the stock
market, so I propose that one investment option consist entirely of
Treasury bonds, which are backed by the full faith and credit of the
United States government.
Options like this
will make voluntary personal retirement accounts a safer investment that
will allow an American to build a nest egg that he or she can pass on to
whomever he or she chooses. Americans who would choose not to save in a
personal account would still be able to count on a
Social Security check equal to
or higher than the benefits of today's seniors.
In the coming days
and weeks, I will work with both the House and the Senate as they take
the next steps in the legislative process. I'm willing to listen to any
good idea from either party.
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 have a shared responsibility to fix
Social Security and make the
system better; to keep seniors out of poverty and expand ownership for
people of every background. And when we do, Republicans and Democrats
will be able to stand together and take credit for doing what is right
for our children and our grandchildren.
And now I'll be glad
to answer some questions, starting with Terry Hunt.
Q Mr. President, a
majority of Americans disapprove of your handling of
Social Security, rising gas
prices and the economy. Are you frustrated by that and by the fact that
you're having trouble gaining traction on your agenda in a
Republican-controlled Congress?
THE PRESIDENT: Look,
we're asking people to do things that haven't been done for 20 years. We
haven't addressed the Social Security
problem since 1983. We haven't had an energy strategy in our country for
decades. And so I'm not surprised that some are balking at doing hard
work. But I have a duty as the President to define problems facing our
nation and to call upon people to act. And we're just really getting
started in the process.
You asked about
Social Security. For the past 60
days, I've traveled our country making it clear to people we have a
problem. That's the first step of any legislative process; is to explain
to people the nature of the problem, and the American people understand
we have a problem.
I've also spent time
assuring seniors they'll get their check. That's a very important part
of making sure we end up with a Social
Security reform. I think if seniors feel like they're not going
to get their check, obviously nothing is going to happen.
And we're making
progress there, too, Terry, as well. See, once the American people
realize there's a problem, then they're going to start asking members of
Congress from both parties, why aren't you doing something to fix it?
And I am more than willing to sit down with people of both parties to
listen to their ideas. Today, I advanced some ideas of moving the
process along. And the legislative process is just getting started, and
I'm optimistic we'll get something done.
Q Is the poll
troubling?
THE PRESIDENT: Polls?
You know, if a President tries to govern based upon polls, you're kind
of like a dog chasing your tail. I don't think you can make good, sound
decisions based upon polls. And I don't think the American people want a
President who relies upon polls and focus groups to make decisions for
the American people.
Social Security is a big issue,
and it's an issue that we must address now. You see, the longer we wait,
the more expensive the solution is going to be for a younger generation
of Americans. The Social Security trustees have estimated that every
year we wait to solve the problem, to fix the hole in the safety net for
younger Americans costs about $600 billion. And so my message to
Congress is -- to Congress is, let's do our duty. Let's come together to
get this issue solved.
Steve.
Q Your top military
officer, General Richard Myers, says the Iraqi insurgency is as strong
now as it was a year ago. Why is that the case? And why haven't we been
more successful in limiting the violence?
THE PRESIDENT: I
think he went on to say we're winning, if I recall. But nevertheless,
there are still some in Iraq who aren't happy with democracy. They want
to go back to the old days of tyranny and darkness, torture chambers and
mass graves. I believe we're making really good progress in Iraq,
because the Iraqi people are beginning to see the benefits of a free
society. They're beginning -- they saw a government formed today.
The Iraqi military is
being trained by our military, and they're performing much better than
the past. The more secure Iraq becomes, as a result of the hard work of
Iraqi security forces, the more confident the people will have in the
process, and the more isolated the terrorists will become.
But Iraq has -- have
got people there that are willing to kill, and they're hard-nosed
killers. And we will work with the Iraqis to secure their future. A free
Iraq in the midst of the Middle East is an important part of spreading
peace. It's a region of the world where a lot of folks in the past never
thought democracy could take hold. Democracy is taking hold. And as
democracy takes hold, peace will more likely be the norm.
In order to defeat
the terrorists, in order to defeat their ideology of hate, in the long
run, we must spread freedom and hope. Today I talked to the Prime
Minister of Iraq. I had a great conversation with him. I told him I was
proud of the fact that he was willing to stand up and lead. I told him I
appreciated his courage and the courage of those who are willing to
serve the Iraqi people in government. I told him, I said, when America
makes a commitment, we'll stand by you. I said, I hope you get your
constitution written on time, and he agreed. He recognizes it's very
important for the Transitional National Assembly to get the constitution
written so it can be submitted to the people on time. He understands the
need for a timely write of the constitution.
And I also encouraged
him to continue to reaching out to disaffected groups in Iraq, and he
agreed. I'm really happy to talk to him; I invited him to come to
America, I hope he comes soon. There are a lot of courageous people in
Iraq, Steve, that are making a big difference in the lives of that
country.
I also want to
caution you all that it's not easy to go from a tyranny to a democracy.
We didn't pass sovereignty but about 10 months ago, and since that time
a lot of progress has been made and we'll continue to make progress for
the good of the region and for the good of our country.
Gregory. David
Gregory.
Q Thank you, sir. Mr.
President, recently the head of the Family Research Council said that
judicial filibusters are an attack against people of faith. And I wonder
whether you believe that, in fact, that is what is nominating [sic]
Democrats who oppose your judicial choices? And I wonder what you think
generally about the role that faith is playing, how it's being used in
our political debates right now?
THE PRESIDENT: I
think people are opposing my nominees because they don't like the
judicial philosophy of the people I've nominated. Some would like to see
judges legislate from the bench. That's not my view of the proper role
of a judge.
Speaking about
judges, I certainly hope my nominees get an up or down vote on the floor
of the Senate. They deserve an up or down vote. I think for the sake of
fairness, these good people I've nominated should get a vote. And I'm
hoping that will be the case as time goes on.
The role of religion
in our society? I view religion as a personal matter. I think a person
ought to be judged on how he or she lives his life, or lives her life.
And that's how I've tried to live my life, through example. Faith-based
is an important part of my life, individually, but I don't -- I don't
ascribe a person's opposing my nominations to an issue of faith.
Q Do you think that's
an inappropriate statement? And what I asked is --
THE PRESIDENT: No, I
just don't agree with it.
Q You don't agree
with it.
THE PRESIDENT: No, I
think people oppose my nominees because -- because of judicial
philosophy.
Q Sorry, I asked you
what you think of the ways faith is being used in our political debates,
not just in society --
THE PRESIDENT: No, I
know you asked me that. Well, I can only speak to myself, and I am
mindful that people in political office should not say to somebody,
you're not equally American if you don't happen to agree with my view of
religion. As I said, I think faith is a personal issue, and I get great
strength from my faith. But I don't condemn somebody in the political
process because they may not agree with me on religion.
The great thing about
America, David, is that you should be allowed to worship any way you
want, and if you choose not to worship, you're equally as patriotic as
somebody who does worship. And if you choose to worship, you're equally
American if you're a Christian, a Jew, a Muslim. That's the wonderful
thing about our country, and that's the way it should be.
John.
Q Good evening, Mr.
President. Several times we've asked you or your aides what you could do
about the high price of gasoline, and very often the answer has come
back, Congress needs to pass the energy bill. Can you explain for us
how, if it were passed, soon after it were introduced, the energy bill
would have an effect on the current record price of oil that we're
seeing out there?
THE PRESIDENT: John,
actually I said in my opening statement that the best way to affect the
current price of gasoline is to encourage producing nations to put more
crude oil on the market. That's the most effective way, because the
price of crude oil determines, in large measure, the price of gasoline.
The feed stock for gasoline is crude oil, and when crude oil goes up the
price of gasoline goes up. There are other factors, by the way, that
cause the price of gasoline to go up, but the main factor is the price
of crude oil. And if we can get nations that have got some excess
capacity to put crude on the market, the increased supply, hopefully,
will meet increased demand, and therefore, take the pressure off price.
Listen, the energy
bill is certainly no quick fix. You can't wave a magic wand. I wish I
could. It's like that soldier at Fort Hood that said, how come you're
not lowering the price of gasoline? I was having lunch with the fellow,
and he said, go lower the price of gasoline, President. I said, I wish I
could. It just doesn't work that way.
This is a problem
that's been a long time in coming. We haven't had an energy policy in
this country. And it's going to take us a while to become less dependent
on foreign sources of energy. What I've laid out for the Congress to
consider is a comprehensive energy strategy that recognizes we need to
be better conservers of energy, that recognizes that we can find more
energy at home in environmentally friendly ways.
And obviously a
contentious issue in front of the Congress is the issue over the ANWR,
which is a part of Alaska. ANWR is 19 million acres of land. Technology
now enables us to use just 2,000 of that 19 million to be able to
explore for oil and gas so we can have oil and gas produced here
domestically.
One of the great
sources of energy for the future is liquefied natural gas. There's a lot
of gas reserves around the world. Gas is -- can only be transported by
ship, though, when you liquefy it, when you put it in solid form. We've
only got five terminals that are able to receive liquefied natural gas
so it can get into our markets. We need more terminals to receive
liquefied natural gas from around the world.
We should have a
active energy -- nuclear energy policy in America. We've got abundant
resources of coal, and we're spending money for clean-coal technology.
So these are longer term projects all aimed at making us become less
dependent on foreign sources of energy.
Terry.
Q So am I reading
correctly that the energy bill would not have had an effect on today's
high gasoline --
THE PRESIDENT: Well,
it would have 10 years ago. That's exactly what I've been saying to the
American people -- 10 years ago if we'd had an energy strategy, we would
be able to diversify away from foreign dependence. And -- but we haven't
done that. And now we find ourselves in the fix we're in. It's taken us
a while to get there, and it's going to take us a while to get out.
Hopefully, additional crude oil on the market from countries with some
spare capacity will help relieve the price for the American consumers.
Terry.
Q Mr. President, your
State Department has reported that terrorist attacks around the world
are at an all-time high. If we're winning the war on terrorism, as you
say, how do you explain that more people are dying in terrorist attacks
on your watch than ever before?
THE PRESIDENT: Well,
we've made the decision to defeat the terrorists abroad so we don't have
to face them here at home. And when you engage the terrorists abroad, it
causes activity and action. And we're relentless. We, the -- America and
our coalition partners. We understand the stakes, and they're very high
because there are people still out there that would like to do harm to
the American people.
But our strategy is
to stay on the offense, is to keep the pressure on these people, is to
cut off their money and to share intelligence and to find them where
they hide. And we are making good progress. The al Qaeda network that
attacked the United States has been severely diminished. We are slowly
but surely dismantling that organization.
In the long run,
Terry -- like I said earlier -- the way to defeat terror, though, is to
spread freedom and democracy. It's really the only way in the long-term.
In the short-term, we'll use our troops and assets and agents to find
these people and to protect America. But in the long-term, we must
defeat the hopelessness that allows them to recruit by spreading freedom
and democracy. But we're making progress.
Q So in the near-term
you think there will be more attacks and more people dying?
THE PRESIDENT: I'm
not going to predict that. In the near-term I can only tell you one
thing: we will stay on the offense; we'll be relentless; we'll be smart
about how we go after the terrorists; we'll use our friends and allies
to go after the terrorists; we will find them where they hide and bring
them to justice.
Let me finish with
the TV people first. Suzanne. You're not a TV person, Ed -- I know you'd
like to be, but -- (laughter.)
Q You'd be surprised.
(Laughter.)
THE PRESIDENT: It's a
tough industry to get into.
Q Mr. President, it
was four years ago when you fist met with Russian President Vladimir
Putin. You said you looked into his eyes and you saw his soul. You'll
also be meeting with the Russian leader in about a week or so. What do
you think of Putin now that he has expressed a willingness to supply
weapons to outlaw regimes, specifically his recent comments that he said
he would provide short-range missiles to Syria and nuclear components to
Iran?
THE PRESIDENT: We
have -- first, just on a broader -- kind of in a broader sense, I had a
long talk with Vladimir there in Slovakia about democracy and about the
importance of democracy. And as you remember, at the press conference --
or if you weren't there, somebody will remember -- he stood up and said
he strongly supports democracy. I take him for his word.
I -- and we'll
continue to work. Condi just -- Condi Rice, our Secretary of State, just
came back and she briefed me that she had a very good discussion with
Vladimir about the merits of democracy, about the need to listen to the
people and have a government that's responsive.
We're working closely
with the Russians on -- on the issue of vehicle-mounted weaponry to
Syria. We didn't appreciate that, but we made ourselves clear. As to
Iran, what Russia has agreed to do is to send highly enriched uranium to
a nuclear civilian power plant, and then collect that uranium after it's
used for electricity -- power purposes. That's what they've decided to
do.
And I appreciate that
gesture. See, what they recognize is that -- what America recognizes,
and what Great Britain, France, and Germany recognize, is that we can't
trust the Iranians when it comes to enriching uranium; that they should
not be allowed to enrich uranium.
And what the Iranians
have said was, don't we deserve to have a nuclear power industry just
like you do? I've kind of wondered why they need one since they've got
all the oil, but nevertheless, others in the world say, well, maybe
that's their right to have their own civilian nuclear power industry.
And what Russia has said: Fine, we'll provide you the uranium, we'll
enrich it for you and provide it to you, and then we'll collect it. And
I appreciate that gesture. I think it's -- so I think Vladimir was
trying to help there. I know Vladimir Putin understands the dangers of a
Iran with a nuclear weapon. And most of the world understands that, as
well.
Wendell.
Q Mr. President, have
you asked your ambassador to the U.N., Ambassador John Bolton, about
allegations that he acted improperly to subordinates? Do you feel that
these allegations warrant your personal intervention? And if they're
true, do you feel that they should disqualify him from holding the post,
sir?
THE PRESIDENT: Well,
John Bolton has been asked the questions about -- about how he handles
his business by members of the United States Senate. He's been asked a
lot of questions and he's given very good answers. John Bolton is a
seasoned diplomat. He's been serving our country for, I think, 20 years.
He has been confirmed by the United States Senate four times. In other
words, he's been up before the Senate before and they've analyzed his
talents and his capabilities and they've confirmed him.
John Bolton is a
blunt guy. Sometimes people say I'm a little too blunt. John Bolton can
get the job done at the United Nations. It seemed like to me it makes
sense to put somebody who's capable, smart, served our country for 20
years, been confirmed by the United States Senate four times, and who
isn't afraid to speak his mind in the post of the ambassador to the U.N.
See, the U.N. needs
reform. If you're interested in reforming the U.N., like I'm interested
in reforming the U.N., it makes sense to put somebody who's skilled and
who is not afraid to speak his mind at the United Nations.
Now, I asked John
during the interview process in the Oval Office, I said, before I send
you up there to the Senate, let me ask you something: do you think the
United Nations is important? See, I didn't want to send somebody up
there who said, it's not -- it's not worth a darn; I don't think I need
to go. He said, no, it's important. But it needs to be reformed.
And I think the
United Nations is important. As a matter of fact, I'll give you an
example. Today I met with the United Nations representative to Syria,
Mr. Larsen. He's an impressive fellow. Now, he's delivered -- to
Lebanon, excuse me -- he's delivered a very strong message to the Syrian
leader, though, that the world expects President Assad to withdraw not
only his military forces, but his intelligence services, completely from
Lebanon.
And now he is in
charge of following up to make sure it happens. I think that's a very
important and useful role for the United Nations to play. We have played
a role. France has played a role. A lot of nations have played roles.
But the United Nations has done a very good job in Syria -- with Syria
in Lebanon of making sure that the world expects the Lebanese elections
to be free in May, without Syrian influence. He's an impressive fellow.
I applaud him for his hard work.
But there's an
example of why I think the United Nations is an important body. On the
other hand, the United Nations has had some problems that we've all
seen. And if we expect the United Nations to be effective, it needs to
clean up its problems. And I think it makes sense to have somebody
representing the United Nations who will -- who will be straightforward
about the issues.
Stretch. You mind if
I call you Stretch in front of --
Q I've been called
worse.
THE PRESIDENT: Okay.
Q Getting back to
Social Security for a moment,
sir, would you consider it a success if Congress were to pass a piece of
legislation that dealt with the long-term solvency problem, but did not
include personal accounts?
THE PRESIDENT: I feel
strongly that there needs to be voluntary personal savings accounts as a
part of the Social Security
system. I mean, it's got to be a part of a comprehensive package. The
reason I feel strongly about that is that we've got a lot of debt out
there, a lot of unfunded liabilities, and our workers need to be able to
earn a better rate of return on our money to help deal with that debt.
Secondly, I like the
idea of giving someone ownership. I mean, why should ownership be
confined only to rich people? Why should people not be allowed to own
and manage their own assets who aren't the, you know, the so-called
investor class? I think everybody ought to be given that right. As a
matter of fact, Congress felt so strongly that people ought to be able
to own and manage their own accounts, they set one up for themselves.
You've heard me say, I like to say this, if it's good enough for the
Congress, it is -- it ought to be good enough for the workers, to give
them that option. The government is never saying, you have to set up a
personal savings account. We're saying, you ought to have the right to
set up a personal saving account so you can earn a better rate of return
on your own money than the government can.
And it's that
difference between the rate of return, between what the government gets
on your money and what a conservative mix of bonds and stocks can get on
your money that will make an enormous difference, and a person being
able to build his or her own nest egg that the government cannot spend.
Now, it's very
important for our fellow citizens to understand there is not a bank
account here in Washington, D.C., where we take your payroll taxes and
hold it for you and then give it back to you when you retire. Our system
here is called pay-as-you-go. You pay into the system through your
payroll taxes, and the government spends it. It spends the money on the
current retirees, and with the money left over, it funds other
government programs. And all that's left behind is file cabinets full of
IOUs.
The reason I believe
that this ought to work is not only should a worker get a better rate of
return, not only should we encourage ownership, but I want people to
have real assets in the system. I want people to be able to say, here's
my mix of bonds and stocks that I own, and I can leave it to whomever I
want. And I hear complaints saying, well, you know, there's going to be
high -- Wall Street fees are going to fleece the people. There's ways to
have fee structures that are fair. As a matter of fact, all you got to
do is go to some of these states where they've got personal accounts
available for their workers, and you'll find that the fees will be fair.
People say, well, I
don't want to have -- take risks. Well, as I had a line in my opening
statement, there are ways where you don't have to take risk. People say,
I'm worried about the stock market going down right before I retire. You
can manage your assets. You can go from bonds and stocks to only bonds
as you get older. In other words, we're giving people flexibility to own
their own asset. And I think that's a vital part of making sure America
is a hopeful place in the future. So not only will these accounts make
the system work better, but the accounts are a better deal. The accounts
will mean something for a lot of workers that might not have assets they
call their own.
David.
Q Mr. President, in
your question -- your answer before about Iraq, you set no benchmarks
for us to understand when it is the troops may be able to --
THE PRESIDENT: In
Iraq?
Q In Iraq, yes --
about when troops may be able to come back.
THE PRESIDENT: Right.
Q Based on what
you've learned now in two years of fighting the insurgency and trying to
train the Iraqi security forces, can you say that within the next year
you think you could have very substantial American withdrawal of troops?
THE PRESIDENT: David,
I know there's a temptation to try to get me to lay out a timetable, and
as you know, during the campaign and -- I'll reiterate it -- I don't
think it's wise for me to set out a timetable. All that will do is cause
an enemy to adjust. So my answer is, as soon as possible. And "as soon
as possible" depends upon the Iraqis being able to fight and do the job.
I had a good video
conference recently with General Casey and General Petreaus -- General
Casey is in charge of the theater; General Petreaus, as you know, is in
charge of training -- and they we're upbeat about what they're seeing
with the Iraqi troops. One of the questions I like to ask is, are they
able to recruit. In other words, you hear -- you see these killers will
target recruiting stations, and I've always wondered whether or not that
has had an effect on the ability for the Iraqis to draw their fellow
citizens into the armed forces. Recruitment is high. It's amazing, isn't
it, that people want to serve, they want their country to be free?
The other question
that -- one of the other issues that is important is the equipping
issue, and the equipment is now moving quite well. In other words,
troops are becoming equipped.
Thirdly, a
fundamental problem has been whether or not there's an established chain
of command, whether or not a civilian government can say to the
military, here's what you need to do -- and whether the command goes
from top to bottom and the plans get executed. And General Petreaus was
telling me he's pleased with the progress being made with setting up a
command structure, but there's still more work to be done.
One of the real
dangers, David, is that as politics takes hold in Iraq, whether or not
the civilian government will keep intact the military structure that
we're now helping them develop. And my message to the Prime Minister and
our message throughout government to the Iraqis is, keep stability;
don't disrupt the training that has gone on -- don't politicize your
military -- in other words, have them there to help secure the people.
So we're making good
progress. We've reduced our troops from 160,000 more or less to 139,000.
As you know, I announced to the country that we would step up our
deployments -- step up deployments and retain some troops for the
elections. And then I said we'd get them out, and we've done that. In
other words, the withdrawals that I said would happen, have happened.
Go ahead; I can see
you've got a follow-up right there on the tip of your tongue.
Q Do you feel that
the number of troops that you've kept there is limiting your options
elsewhere in the world? Just today you had the head of the Defense
Intelligence Agency say that he was now concerned that the North
Koreans, for example, could put a weapon, a nuclear weapon on a missile
that could reach Japan or beyond. Do you feel, as you are confronting
these problems, the number of troops you've left tied up in Iraq is
limiting your options to go beyond the diplomatic solutions that you
described for North Korea and Iran?
THE PRESIDENT: No, I
appreciate that question. The person to ask that to, the person I ask
that to, at least, is to the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, my top
military advisor. I say, do you feel that we've limited our capacity to
deal with other problems because of our troop levels in Iraq? And the
answer is, no, he doesn't feel we're limited. He feels like we've got
plenty of capacity.
You mentioned the
Korean Peninsula. We've got good capacity in Korea. We traded troops for
new equipment, as you know; we brought some troop -- our troop levels
down in South Korea, but replaced those troops with more capacity. Let
me talk about North Korea, if you don't mind. Is that your question?
Q Go right ahead.
(Laughter.)
THE PRESIDENT: I'm
surprised you didn't ask it. (Laughter.)
Look, Kim Jong-il is
a dangerous person. He's as man who starves his people. He's got huge
concentration camps. And, as David accurately noted, there is concern
about his capacity to deliver a nuclear weapon. We don't know if he can
or not, but I think it's best when you're dealing with a tyrant like Kim
Jong-il to assume he can.
That's why I've
decided that the best way to deal with this diplomatically is to bring
more leverage to the situation by including other countries. It used to
be that it was just America dealing with North Korea. And when Kim
Jong-il would make a move that would scare people, everybody would say,
America, go fix it. I felt it -- it didn't work. In other words, the
bilateral approach didn't work. The man said he was going to do
something and he didn't do it, for starters.
So I felt a better
approach would be to include people in the neighborhood, into a
consortium to deal with him. And it's particularly important to have
China involved. China has got a lot of influence in North Korea. We went
down to Crawford with Jiang Zemin, and it was there that Jiang Zemin and
I issued a statement saying that we would work for a nuclear
weapons-free Korean Peninsula.
And so when Kim
Jong-il announced the other day about his nuclear intentions and
weapons, it certainly caught the attention of the Chinese because they
had laid out a policy that was contradicted by Kim Jong-il, and it's
helpful to have the Chinese leadership now involved with him. It's more
-- it's better to have more than one voice sending the same message to
Kim Jong-il. The best way to deal with this issue diplomatically is to
have five other -- four other nations beside ourselves dealing with him.
And we'll continue to do so.
Finally, as you know,
I have instructed Secretary Rumsfeld -- and I work with Congress --
Secretary Rumsfeld has worked with Congress to set up a missile defense
system. And we're in the process of getting that missile defense system
up and running. One of the reasons why I thought it was important to
have a missile defense system is for precisely the reason that you
brought up, that perhaps Kim Jong-il has got the capacity to launch a
weapon, and wouldn't it be nice to be able to shoot it down. And so
we've got a comprehensive strategy in dealing with him.
Ed, yes.
Q Mr. President, good
evening.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
Q Sir, you've talked
all around the country about the poisonous partisan atmosphere here in
Washington. I wonder why do you think that is? And do you personally
bear any responsibility in having contributed to this atmosphere?
THE PRESIDENT: I'm
sure there are some people that don't like me. You know, Ed, I don't
know. I've thought long and hard about it. I was -- I've been
disappointed. I felt that people could work -- work together in good
faith. It's just a lot of politics in the town. It's kind of a zero-sum
attitude. We can't -- we can't cooperate with so-and-so because it may
make their party look good, and vice-versa.
Although having said
that, we did have some success in the education bill. We certainly came
together as a country after September the 11th. I appreciate the strong
bipartisan support for supporting our troops in harm's way. There's been
a lot of instances of bipartisanship, but when you bring a tough issue
up like Social Security, it --
sometimes people divide into camps.
I'm proud of my
party. Our party has been the party of ideas. We said, here's a problem,
and here's some ideas as to how to fix it. And as I've explained to some
people, I don't want to politicize this issue -- people say, you didn't
need to bring this up, Mr. President, it may cost you politically. I
don't think so. I think the American people appreciate somebody bringing
up tough issues, particularly when they understand the stakes: the
system goes broke in 2041.
In 2027, for those
listening, we'll be obligated to pay $200 billion more dollars a year
than we take in, in order to make sure the baby boomers get the benefits
they've been promised. In other words, this is a serious problem, and
the American people expect us to put our politics aside and get it done.
You know, I can't
answer your question as to why. I'll continue to do my best. I've tried
to make sure the dialogue is elevated. I don't believe I've resorted to
name-calling here in Washington, D.C. I find that to not be productive.
But I also understand the mind of the American people. They're wondering
what's going on. They're wondering why we can't come together and get an
energy bill, for example. They're wondering why we can't get
Social Security done. And my
pledge to the American people is, I'll continue to work hard to -- with
people of both parties and share credit, and give people the benefit of
the credit when we get something done.
Yes, sir.
Q Thank you, Mr.
President. Just to follow up on Ed's question, we like to remind you
that you came to Washington hoping to change the tone, and yet, here we
are, three months into your second term and you seem deadlocked with
Democrats on issues like Bolton, DeLay, judges. Is there any danger that
the atmosphere is becoming so poisoned, or that you're spending so much
political capital that it could imperil your agenda items like
Social Security, energy?
THE PRESIDENT: I
don't think so, Bill. I think when it's all said and done, we're going
to get a lot done. I mean, after all, one of the issues that people have
been working on for a long time is class-action lawsuit reform, and I
signed that bill. An issue that people have been working on for a long
time is bankruptcy law reform, and I signed that bill. And the House got
an energy bill out recently, and I talked to Senator Domenici the other
day and he's upbeat about getting a bill out pretty quickly and get it
to conference and get the issues resolved.
I'm pretty aware of
what the issues might be that will hang up a conference, and I think we
can get those issues resolved. We're more than willing to help out. So I
do believe I'll get an energy bill by August.
There's a budget
agreement, and I'm grateful for that. In other words, we are making
progress. No question the Social
Security issue is a big issue, but it's -- as I said before, we
hadn't talked about this issue for 20 years. And they thought we had it
fixed 20 years -- 22 years ago, for 75 years, and here we are, 22 years
later after the fix, talking about it again. And it's serious business.
If you're a grandmother or a grandfather listening, you're going to get
your check. But your grandchildren are going to have a heck of a price
to bear if we don't get something done now.
You see, it's
possible if nothing gets done that the payroll taxes will go up to some
18 percent. Imagine that for your children and grandchildren, living in
a society where payroll taxes are up at 18 percent. Or there will be
dramatic benefit cuts as time goes on. Now is the time to get it done.
And my pledge to the American people is that I'm going to stay on this
issue because I know it's important for you.
Fletcher.
Q Yes, Mr. President.
You had talked about North Korea and you mentioned that the six-party
talks allow you to bring extra leverage to the table. But do you think
they're working, given North Korea's continued threats and the
continuing growth of their nuclear stockpile?
Q And how long do you
let it go before you go to the U.N.?
THE PRESIDENT: No, I
appreciate that question. I do think it's making a difference to have
China and Japan and South Korea and Russia and the United States working
together with North Korea. In my judgment, that's the only way to get
this issue solved diplomatically, is to bring more than one party to the
table to convince Kim Jong-il to give up his nuclear ambitions. And how
far we let it go on is dependent upon our consensus amongst ourselves.
Condi, the other day, laid out a potential option of going to the United
Nations Security Council. Obviously, that's going to require the parties
agreeing. After all, some of the parties in the process have got the
capacity to veto a U.N. Security Council resolution.
So this is an issue
we need to continue to work with our friends and allies. And the more
Kim Jong-il threatens and brags, the more isolated he becomes. And we'll
continue to work with China on this issue. I spend a lot of time dealing
with Chinese leaders on North Korea, as do people in my administration.
And I'll continue to work with our friends in Japan and South Korea. And
Vladimir Putin understands the stakes, as well.
Mark.
Q Mr. President,
under the law, how would you justify the practice of renditioning, where
U.S. agents who brought terror suspects abroad, taking them to a third
country for interrogation? And would you stand for it if foreign agents
did that to an American here?
THE PRESIDENT: That's
a hypothetical, Mark. We operate within the law and we send people to
countries where they say they're not going to torture the people.
But let me say
something: the United States government has an obligation to protect the
American people. It's in our country's interests to find those who would
do harm to us and get them out of harm's way. And we will do so within
the law, and we will do so in honoring our commitment not to torture
people. And we expect the countries where we send somebody to, not to
torture, as well. But you bet, when we find somebody who might do harm
to the American people, we will detain them and ask others from their
country of origin to detain them. It makes sense. The American people
expect us to do that. We -- we still at war.
One of my -- I've
said this before to you, I'm going to say it again, one of my concerns
after September the 11th is the farther away we got from September the
11th, the more relaxed we would all become and assume that there wasn't
an enemy out there ready to hit us. And I just can't let the American
people -- I'm not going to let them down by assuming that the enemy is
not going to hit us again. We're going to do everything we can to
protect us. And we've got guidelines. We've got law. But you bet, Mark,
we're going to find people before they harm us.
John McKinnon.
Q Yes, sir. I'd just
like to ask, simply, what's your view of the economy right now?
First-quarter growth came in weaker than expected, there have been
worries about inflation and lower spending by consumers. Are these
basically just bumps in the road, in your opinion, or are they reasons
for some real concern and could they affect your agenda on
Social Security?
THE PRESIDENT: I
appreciate that, John. I am concerned about the economy because our
small business owners and families are paying higher prices at the gas
pump. And that affects the lives of a lot of people. If you're a small
business owner and you have to pay higher gas prices and you're --
likely you may not hire a new worker. In other words, higher gas prices,
as I have said, is like a tax on the -- on the small business job
creators. And it's a tax on families. And I do think this has affected
consumer sentiment; I do think it's affected the economy.
On the other hand,
the experts tell me that the forecast of economic growth in the coming
months looks good. There's more to do to make sure that we don't slip
back into slow growth or negative growth. One is to make sure taxes stay
low; secondly, is to continue to pursue legal reform. I hope we can get
an asbestos reform bill out of both the House and the Senate. There's
some positive noises on Capitol Hill as to whether or not we can get an
asbestos reform bill. That will be an important reform in order to make
sure that our economy continues to grow.
We need to continue
to open up markets for U.S. products. As you know, there will be a vote
for the Central American Free Trade Agreement here, hopefully soon. I'm
a strong believer that that's in the interest of American job creators
and workers, that we open up those markets. I know it's important
geopolitically to say to those Central American countries, you've got a
friend in America. We said we'd have an agreement with you, and it's
important to ratify it. It'll help strengthen the neighborhood.
We've also got to
make sure that we continue to reduce regulation. I think an important --
I know an important initiative that we're going to be coming forth with
here probably in the fall is tax reform. I was amazed by the report the
other day that there is some $330 billion a year that goes unpaid by
American taxpayers. It's a phenomenal amount of money. To me, it screams
for making the tax system easier to understand, more fair and to make
sure that people pay their taxes -- "more fair" means pay what you owe.
And so there are a
lot of things we can do, John, to make sure economic growth continues.
But I'm an optimistic fellow -- based not upon my own economic forecast
-- I'm not an economist -- but based upon the experts that I listen to.
Let's see here.
Richard. (Laughter.) There is somebody with a bad throat back there.
(Laughter.)
Q Mr. President,
you've made No Child Left Behind a big part of your education agenda.
The nation's largest teachers union has filed suit against it, saying
it's woefully inadequately funded. What's your response to that? And do
you think that No Child Left Behind is working?
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, I
think it's working. And the reason why I think it's working is because
we're measuring, and the measurement is showing progress toward teaching
people how to read and write and add and subtract. Listen, the whole
theory behind No Child Left Behind is this: if we're going to spend
federal money, we expect the states to show us whether or not we're
achieving simple objectives -- like literacy, literacy in math, the
ability to read and write. And, yes, we're making progress. And I can
say that with certainty because we're measuring, Richard.
Look, I'm a former
governor, I believe states ought to control their own destiny when it
comes to schools. They are by far the biggest funder of education, and
it should remain that way. But we spend a lot of money here at the
federal level and have increased the money we spend here quite
dramatically at the federal level. And we changed the policy: instead of
just spending money and hope for the best, we're now spending money and
saying, measure.
And some people don't
like to measure. But if you don't measure, how do you know whether or
not you've got a problem in a classroom? I believe it's best to measure
early and correct problems early, before it's too late. That's why as a
part of the No Child Left Behind Act we had money available for remedial
education. In other words, we said we're going to measure, and when we
detect someone who needs extra help, that person will get extra help.
But, absolutely, it's
a good piece of legislation. I will do everything I can to prevent
people from unwinding it, by the way.
Q What about the
lawsuit? Which --
THE PRESIDENT: Well,
I don't know about the lawsuit; I'm not a lawyer. But, you know, I'll
ask my lawyers about the lawsuit. But I know some people are trying to
unwind No Child Left Behind. I've heard some states say, well, we don't
like it. Well, you know, my attitude about not liking it is this: If you
teach a child to read and write, it shouldn't bother you whether you
measure. That's all we're asking.
The system for too
long had just shuffled children through and just hoped for the best. And
guess what happened? We had people graduating from high school who were
illiterate -- and that's just not right in America. It wasn't working.
And so I came to Washington and worked with both Republicans and
Democrats -- this is a case where bipartisanship was really working
well. And we said, look, we're going to spend more money at the federal
level. But the federal government, what, spends about 7 percent of the
total education budgets around the country.
But we said, let's
change the attitude. We ought to start with the presumption every child
can learn, not just some; and, therefore, if you believe every child can
learn, then you ought to expect every classroom to teach. I hear
feedback from No Child Left Behind, by the way -- and, admittedly, I get
the cook's tour, sometimes -- but I hear teachers talk to me about how
thrilled they are with No Child Left Behind; they appreciate the fact
that the system now shows deficiencies early so they can correct those
problems. And it is working.
Okay. Mr. Knox.
Q Thank you, Mr.
President. I want to make sure I understand your answer to Mike about
North Korea. He asked you how long you were prepared to let the
multiparty talks proceed, in the face of what might be a gathering
threat from North Korea, and you said, how long -- I'm paraphrasing --
how long we let it go on is dependent on our consensus among ourselves
--
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
Q Did you mean to say
that you will neither refer North Korea to the U.N. for sanctions, nor
take military action unless you have the agreement of all the other
partners abroad?
THE PRESIDENT: No, I
didn't speak about military -- I'm speaking about diplomatically. And
secondly, yes, we've got partners. This is a six-party talk; five of us
on the side of convincing Kim Jong-il to get rid of his nuclear weapons,
and obviously, Kim Jong-il believes he ought to have some. And my point
was that it is best -- if you have a group of people trying to achieve
the same objective, it's best to work with those people, it's best to
consult.
His question was, are
you going to -- when are you going to -- when will there be
consequences. And what we want to do is to work with our allies on this
issue and develop a consensus, a common approach to the consequences of
Kim Jong-il. I mean, it seems counterproductive to have five of us
working together, and all of a sudden, one of us say, well, we're not
going to work together.
Again, I repeat to
you, our aim is to solve this problem diplomatically. And like I've said
before, all options, of course, are on the table, but the best way to
solve this problem diplomatically is to work with four other nations who
have all agreed in achieving the same goal, and that is a nuclear-free
Korean Peninsula.
Final question.
Hutch. I don't want to cut into some of these TV shows that are getting
ready to air. (Laughter.) For the sake of the economy. (Laughter.)
Q I wanted to ask you
about your ideas --
THE PRESIDENT: Is
that all right? Go ahead, Hutch. Sorry.
Q I wanted to ask you
about your ideas on dealing with Social
Security solvency problems. As I understand it -- I know you'll
tell me if I'm wrong -- the benefits would be equal to what -- at least
equal to what they are today, and then any increase in benefits would be
indexed according to income, with lower-income people getting bigger
increases. Two things on that: Today's benefits probably won't mean much
somewhere down the road; and how far are you going to go with this
means-based program? Are you talking about --
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, I
appreciate that.
Q -- where a rich
person, say, Dick Cheney, wouldn't get much out of it?
THE PRESIDENT: Now,
wait a minute, don't get personal here, Hutch. You're on national TV;
that's a cheap shot. First of all, in terms of the definition of who
would get -- whose benefits would rise faster and whose wouldn't, that's
going to be a part of the negotiation process with the United States
Congress. There's a -- a Democrat economist had a very -- he put forth
this idea and he had a level of -- I think 30 percent of the people
would be considered to be in a lower-income scale.
But this is to be
negotiated. This is a part of the negotiation process. My job is to lay
out an idea that I think will make the system more fair.
And the second
question -- or the first question --
Q It's a means-based
program where the real wealthy people might not get very much out of it.
THE PRESIDENT: It is
-- that's right. I mean, obviously, it is means base when you're talking
about lower-income versus wealthier income. The lower-income people's
benefits would rise faster. And the whole goal would be to see to it
that nobody retired in poverty. Somebody who has worked all their life
and paid in the Social Security
system would not retire into poverty.
One other point on
Social Security that people have
got to understand is that it's -- the system of today is not fair for a
person whose spouse has died early. In other words, if you're a
two-working family like families are here in America, and -- two people
working in your family, and the spouse dies early -- before 62, for
example -- all of the money that the spouse has put into the system is
held there, and then when the other spouse retires, he or she gets to
choose the benefits from his or her own work, or the other spouse's
benefits, which is ever higher but not both. See what I'm saying?
Somebody has worked all their life, the money they put into the system
just goes away. It seems unfair to me. I've talked to too many people
whose lives were turned upside down when the spouse died early and all
they got was a burial benefit.
If you have a
personal savings account, a voluntary personal savings account, and your
-- and you die early, that's an asset you can leave to your spouse or to
your children. That's an important thing for our fellow citizens to
understand. The system today is not fair, particularly if the spouse has
died early, and this will help remedy that.
Listen, thank you all
for your interest. God bless our country.
Fact Sheet:
Strengthening Social Security For Those In Need
Issued by the White House
Strengthening
Social Security For Those In Need
Today's
Presidential Action:
Today In A
Primetime News Conference, The President Laid Out His Vision For Moving
Forward With Bipartisan Social Security Reform.
The American people understand that Social Security is headed for
serious financial trouble and the President believes it is our duty to
make Social Security permanently solvent. The President also believes it
is our responsibility to improve the system by directing extra help to
those most in need and making it a better deal for younger workers.
As Congress Begins
Work On Legislation, The President Outlined Three Goals:
ensure that future generations receive benefits equal to or greater than
today's seniors; protect those who depend on Social Security the most;
and replace the empty promises being made to younger workers with real
money.
The President Made
Clear That Some Things Will Not Change.
Seniors and people with disabilities will continue to get their checks,
and all Americans born before 1950 will also receive their full
benefits.
Background: A
Reformed System that Strengthens Social Security For Those In Need
Future Generations
Receive Benefits Equal To Or Greater Than Today's Seniors.
Under any plan to reform Social Security, future generations should
receive benefits equal to or greater than the benefits that seniors
receive today.
·
Millions Of Americans Depend On Social Security As A Primary Source
Of Income. As a matter of fairness, the fundamental promise of
Social Security must be kept.
Protect Future
Generations Who Depend on Social Security The Most:
President Bush has made it clear that we must provide extra help to
those future seniors who need it most.
·
Benefits Should Grow Faster in the Future For Low-Income Workers Than
For Those Who Are Better Off. Under a reformed system, low-income
workers should receive benefits that grow faster than inflation. In
order to return the system to solvency, the benefit increases for
wealthier seniors should grow no faster than the rate of inflation. This
would be accomplished by adopting a sliding-scale benefit formula,
similar to the Pozen approach.
·
Eliminate Poverty Among Future Seniors. Today, roughly two
million retirees who paid into Social Security their whole lives are
collecting benefits that leave them below the poverty line. The
President believes we should make good on a great national commitment:
if you work hard and pay into Social Security your entire life, you will
not retire into poverty.
·
This Reform Would Solve Approximately 70 Percent Of The Funding
Problems Facing Social Security. A responsible, reasonable and
sustainable rate of benefit growth for wealthier seniors will help
return the system to fiscal balance and would enable us to help those
seniors in the greatest need.
Replace The Empty
Promises Being Made to Younger Workers With Real Money.
Younger workers should have the option
of putting a portion of their payroll taxes into a voluntary personal
account which will allow them to build a nest egg that belongs to them.
This money will give workers an opportunity to receive a higher rate of
return than the current Social Security System can provide.
·
Voluntary Personal Accounts Should Include The Risk Free Option Of
Investing In Treasury Bonds. Voluntary personal accounts should
include an investment option that allows workers to invest in U.S.
Treasury bonds, which have no risk. Workers who have reservations about
investing in the markets will still be able to rely on a Social Security
check that is equal to or higher than today's retirees.
The President Will
Continue To Work With Congress To Find A Solution To Social Security
That Is Sensible, Permanent And Fair.
Social Security is too important to pass this problem on to the next
generation. The President has committed to work with both the House and
Senate in a bipartisan way as they take the next steps in the
legislative process.
Click to More Senior News on the
Front Page
Copyright: SeniorJournal.com |
