I was glad to hear what a good "state" our nation is in, considering all the problems that seemed obvious to me before the speech.
President Bush was quick to assure we baby boomers that our social security checks would still be headed our way as promised. He insisted that the Social Security system needed a revision to stay solvent. I don't think I have enough information to make any comment on how solvent social security actually is.
I'm certain I didn't understand his whole plan to let younger workers invest part of their social security money in private funds as a way to "fix" it.
I wonder if he realizes some people start work at 15 and start paying in social security money long before they are likely to think about retirement or feel a need to use the money to buy stocks or bonds or 401K plans.
Also, he said that only certain plans would be offered so people wouldn't do dumb stuff and lose all their money before they turn 65. Well, gee. What's the point? Who will benefit if we can only put money in "secure, slow growing" portfolios that have been "approved" by the government? Maybe a government owned investment would be best? Like savings bonds or a social security plan for instance? Of course, I probably didn't understand it all, like (I'm guessing) 85 percent of the people watching.
If we can't understand what he's talking about when he's explaining it, how are we going to understand investments? How much training will the average citizen get on how to safely gamble with their retirement funds? And what happens to the unlucky person who invested in some company that goes "Enron" on them just a few quarters before retirement? Maybe he should let us wade into the investment puddle slowly. We could start with our income tax deductions taken out of each paycheck.
Even if we just kept the amount usually designated for our favorite uncle, and put it in a bank's savings account, we could draw interest on it ourselves instead of the government using the money all year.
It seems that although they may be willing to let us risk losing our retirement money, they hesitate letting us make investments with our tax money.
He also mentioned letting "day workers" (from anywhere else in the world I suppose but realistically some place close enough to commute) be free to come across the border at will and do jobs "Americans won't do." Now what jobs would that be? I tend to think there will be lots of jobs that would quickly become listed as "jobs Americans won't do -- for less than minimum wage." They might be able to live well on those wages in their home country, but not in the United States. Anyone who lives in America could tell them that.
Since Bush is from Texas, I am assuming he's most familiar with low-paid itinerant workers who follow the crops to help pick fruit or harvest vegetables that have to be picked by hand.
Just because people can cross the border every day, week, month or year to do a job, doesn't mean they will stay in Texas, or go back home.
There are low paying jobs all across America and if American's won't do them (for less than minimum wage) foreign "day workers" would be available for those jobs too.
I don't think the concept of "day worker" will be fair to anyone.
How realistic is it to tell them they must expect to work for less money than American workers? I wonder if these "day workers" will have social security money taken out of their checks? Why would they? Are we working our way toward another culture based on indentured servitude? Can we realistically think companies that only value profit in a global market, will not hire people willing to work for less pay before they even consider hiring someone for more than minimum wage? How long before "jobs Americans won't do" becomes "jobs Americans aren't offered?" I suppose we can always move to another country. Unfortunately I can only speak English so my options are limited.
Until the next time friends remember, good speech writers are great and a talented PR person can make anything look good. Maybe we should start listening with our eyes.