What’s very good news for seniors and especially good news for the baby boomers seems to be looked upon as very bad news for President Bush.

The good news is that the Congressional Budget Office just released a study which, while forecasting a significant growing deficit in the Social Security program, did not find the long-term outlook anywhere as dire as the Bush administration has forecast.

The non-partisan analysis by the CBO shows, according to Rep. Bob Matsui, that while Social Security is facing a financial challenge, it is not a crisis. Matsui, the senior Democrat on the House Ways and Means Committee, sent a letter to Bush conveying the happy message that Social Security’s fiscal future is manageable and is not in need of any radical reforms.

In his letter, Matsui points out that while Social Security is confronted with a long-range deficit, this deficit is only “about half as large” as the Bush administration seemingly finds it.

Charles Zwick, formerly the director of the Bureau of the Budget under President Lyndon Johnson, points out that this realistic congressional analysis is “a first step in defusing a crisis that never existed.” As Zwick sees it, the “alleged crisis” formed the basis for the Bush administration’s recommendations to reduce Social Security benefits.

But the Republicans don’t give up very easily on their plans to downgrade Social Security. As the Wall Street Journal reports, “Proponents of change, including the White House, said the good news wasn’t enough to halt the push for change.”

White House spokeswoman Claire Buchan emphasized that overhauling Social Security “clearly remains a priority for the president, because it simply must be fixed to be there for our children and grandchildren.”

Wall Street Journal columnist David Wessel remembered that President Ronald Reagan agreed to increase payroll taxes to support the Social Security system. Wessel judges that Bush won’t propose an increase in payroll taxes — rather, “his pattern is to throw Congress some principles and hope they’ll do the heavy lifting.” In doing so, Bush will “have to identify an acceptable way to trim spending on benefits,” Wessel believes.

Given that Bush tries so hard to pose as the inheritor of Ronald Reagan, this kind of Social Security approach can only prove that Reagan’s youngest son will feel vindicated in his low opinion of President Bush.

Last year in the online magazine Salon, Ron Reagan made clear his distaste for the Bush administration: “Yes, some of the current policies are an extension of the ‘80s. But the overall thrust of this administration is not my father’s — these people are overly reaching, overly aggressive, overly secretive and just plain corrupt. I don’t trust these people.”

It is hoped that most seniors and most members of the boomer generation will take their lead from Ron Reagan and will not be taken in by Bush’s cutback rhetoric on Social Security.

Social Security represents a most solemn continuing promise by the government to protect its aging citizens. To betray that promise by cutting Social Security benefits is most difficult to accept and would be the ultimate Bush betrayal.


Ted Ruhig is well-known in Sacramento for his tireless advocacy for proposals designed to help seniors live long, happy, full lives. He has held leadership roles in several advocacy groups and on government advisory boards. Ruhig once sued the California Department of Aging for age discrimination, and won!