In President Bush's news conference last night on energy and Social Security reform, he stated, "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." (the entire transcript can be read here.

This statement is interesting given the fact that on his "60 day, 60 city tour" Bush spent much of his time discussing how the treasury bonds in the trust fund are little more than IOUs which the American people expect will be paid back by the government someday.

He has been discrediting the trust fund as nothing more than IOUs, just last week he said, "You see, a lot of people in America think there's a trust, in this sense -- that we take your money through payroll taxes and then we hold it for you, and then when you retire, we give it back to you. But that's not the way it works. There is no "trust fund," just IOUs that I saw firsthand, that future generations will pay -- will pay for either in higher taxes, or reduced benefits, or cuts to other critical government programs." He has been criss-crossing the country saying this, yet last night said the trust fund has the full faith and credit of the United States Government.

Bush spent much of his press conference discussing the need for responsible reforms to Social Security; reforms that he says won't cut benefits for people and that will keep retirees receiving benefits out of poverty. Yet in the same breath he says he believes the best way to do this is to have workers divert a percentage of their payroll taxes into a personal account. Hundreds of economists, policy analysts, and Social Security experts have come out over the last few months and said that personal accounts will add a level of risk to the benefits being paid to recipients. Bush is still trying to market a bad plan to the American people, yet disguising it as one that is both necessary and progressive. Private accounts are neither necessary nor progressive, and luckily, polls have shown that more and more Americans are believing this to be true.

Tonight at 8:30 PM (EST) the President will hold his first publicly broadcasted evening news conference since the start of his second term. At the news conference he will discuss plans for overhauling Social Security, and he will also discuss the high gas prices which have been plaguing the nation in recent months.

Press Secretary Scott McLellan has noted that Bush will speak more specifically about his plans for Social Security reform than he has been. The President has been criticized by many for not speaking specifically enough regarding his exact plans for reform. During the conference Bush is also expected to urge Congress to pass his energy reform plan. High oil and gas prices are beginning to take a toll on the the level of national economic growth, as well as on Bush's approval ratings. Click here to read Sierra Club comments on his energy plan.

The Senate Finance Committe held a hearing yesterday on the issue of Social Security solvency and private accounts. Witnesses testifying before the committee included Peter Orszag from the Brookings Institution, Robert Pozen, whose Social Security plan has been praised by Bush, Joan Entmacher of the National Women's Law Center, Michael Tanner of Cato, and Peter Ferrara of the Free Enterprise Fund. Click here for witness testimonies.

Committee Chairman Charles Grassley told reporters after the hearing that he wants to move forward with Social Security legislation. Republicans on the committee are planning to meet in two weeks to start coming with legislation that Grassley hopes will appeal to the Democrats on the committee, which include Senators Max Baucus (D-MT), Kent Conrad (D-ND), Jeff Bingaman (D-NM), John Kerry (D-MA), Blanche Lincoln (D-AR), and Ron Wyden (D-OR).

Click here and here for newspaper articles on the hearing as well as the Social Security rally that took place yesterday afternoon on Capitol Hill.

On tuesday, Finance Committee member Orrin Hatch (R-UT) said that both he and Sen. Charles Grassley (R-IA) had "pretty much told the president he's not going to get carve-outs" in regards to Social Security reform. Senate GOP leaders seem to be coming around to the fact that Bush's Social Security plan is not politically popular enough for them to seriously pursue.

Hatch, in fact, is promoting a plan that would let people contribute up to $5,000 per year into a personal account, with the government providing scaled matching contributions for those who make less than $80,000 annually. Hatch's proposal also provides financial incentives that would be added to the accounts of those who opt to defer their receipt of Social Security retirement benefits. And the debate for reform continues.

Of note: On April 26th, at 10 AM, the Senate Finance Committee will hold a hearing on sustainable solvency, during which they will look at proposals for reform both with and without private accounts. Robert Pozen, a former member of Bush's 2001 Social Security commission, will testify. His plan for reform has garnered a lot of attention over the past few months.

According to a new report by the Congressional Research Service, almost 4 in 10 Americans are affected by taxation of Social Security benefits.

There are three tiers of income taxes on Social Security benefits. For married couples, with a total income of $32,000 or less, there is no tax on their benefits. For couples with income between $32,000 and $44,000, half of their benefits are subject to tax. For couples with income exceeding $44,000, 85 percent of their benefits are subject to income tax.

For individuals, these levels are set at $25,000, $34,000, and greater than $34,000.

The Senate-approved budget resolution includes language that would roll back a tax increase on Social Security benefits that was enacted in 1993, but the provision is not expected to survive a House-Senate conference.

Next week Sen. John Sununu (R-NH) and Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) plan to reintroduce their bill on Social Security reform in Congress. Their bill includes payroll tax-financed individual accounts.

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) is also moving ahead with work on his Social Security legislation. His bill will also include payroll tax-financed individual investment accounts, but unlike other GOP bills, will most likely propose to raise the retirement age for benefit eligibility. He is considering the age of 68 as of right now (the current retirement age is 67).

Graham is also exploring various approaches to "progressive price indexing," an idea which is touted by in Robert Pozen's Social Security reform proposal. Pozen, a Democrat, was a member of Bush's 2001 Social Security commission. His plan, which is getting increasing favorable attention from President Bush, would protect the lowest-income seniors by keeping them under wage indexing but would gradually blend in price indexing until the seniors at the upper end of the income scale would be subject to full price indexing.

Congress returned from recess this week, during which House Republicans alone held 550 events on Bush's plan to overhaul Social Security. Despite all this talk of privatization accounts, even White House aides are saying that perhaps other reforms should be considered.

On April 5th, Chuck Blahous, an economic advisor to Bush and the administration's top aide on Social Security policy, said that raising the $90,000 cap on wages subject to the Social Security payroll tax would delay the onset of the long term Social Security shortfall. Blahous did not rule out White House support for proposals to raise the cap, but many GOP congressmen are opposed to the idea, including House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-TX). Others such as Sen. Graham (R-SC), have been criticized for supporting such an idea.

Also yesterday, the President continued his push to "educate" the public on the need for Social Security reform. On his visit to West Virginia, he commented, "There is no 'trust fund,' just IOUs that I saw firsthand, that future generations will pay -- will pay for either in higher taxes, or reduced benefits, or cuts to other critical government programs." The full transcript of his comments can be found here.

Comments such as these are unnecessarily misleading about the health of our Social Security system, which can pay 100% of benefits for years to come. It is rather the administration's expensive tax cuts and the general decrease of available national revenue that will cause future generations to pay in terms of reduced social benefits and cuts in critical government programs.

In response to Bush's comments, Democratic Congressional leaders Harry Reid (D-NV) and Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), submitted the following comments: "It is simply wrong to suggest that the Social Security Trust Fund does not exist, or that the securities held by the Trust Fund are merely pieces of paper. For a President to even suggest that the federal government might, for the first time, default on a security backed by the full faith and credit of the United States unnecessarily misleads American workers about the health of the Social Security program." For the rest of their comments, click here.

Yesterday the Senate named seven Senators to the conference committee for the budget resolution.