Tonight President Bush gave what was only his fourth televised press conference since he won presidency in 2000. It's no secret that President Bush hates the press, and who can blame him, the majority of them give him quite a bum wrap. But things have become so muddled and deadlocked on Capitol Hill over the past month that things needed to be set straight. Partisan politics has become so polarizing and biting that everyone seems to be at a standstill as far as Social Security, UN Ambassador Bolton, and Bush's judicial nominees. And so this evening Bush, with an air of lightheartedness and a stern 9 minute speech, made it clear where he stands.

The main subject of his speech, and some of the questions, was what interested me the most: the future of social security. It's no secret where I stand on the issue, and that I've made it a point for the College Republicans at SHU to focus on the issue this semester. For the most part, Bush and Vice President Cheney have been traveling the country promoting private accounts but have said little about their other plans to fix the system. They never claimed private accounts would fix it alone, so there had to be other changes to make the whole boat solvent again. Tonight, Bush announced those proposals:

It's a plan drawn out by a Democratic Senator (a move showing Bush's bi-partisan agenda on the matter) that involves a sliding scale for increased benefits, favoring lower income workers. Everyone gets increased benefits as they retire, however lower income workers (those who paid into the system with minimum wage all their lives) will get a bigger payout than the wealthier Americans. While some Republicans (like my Dad) may not enjoy this idea, since it is a major re-distribution of wealth, I think it's a step in the right direction. You figure, the middle class and wealthier workers are more likely to invest in the private accounts program, therefore gaining back more to begin with... so it would all balance out. Bush presented a much sharper, clearer plan for fixing Social Security, something none of the leading Democrats in Congress have been able to do.

He then spoke on gas prices, and the importance of developing other forms fuel. He spoke about his energy plan, which has already been approved by the House, which calls for a number of things: building more refineries, advancement of clean nuclear power, and the drilling of ANWR (finally!). He also emphatically stated that there will not be price gouging at the gas stations across the country.

The question and answering session, which took up a majority of the event, focused on everything across the board, from the North Korean threat, to Putin selling arms to Syria, to No Child Left Behind and religion in politics.

Bush is having a hard time right now, and there isn't much he can do about it. The Dems in the Senate are causing a stink, all stemming from their still-sore wounds received in the past election, and Bush going on national TV to plead his case is definitely going to help. Bush has sort of been sitting back on his hands over the past month, allowing these talking heads to walk all over his stances on things. Well now Bush is fighting back, taking it to the people, and making himself clear. The public (and polls have shown) are tired of the partisan bickering going on in Congress. Nothing's getting done, and too many people (and I'm not going out on a limb when I say it's mainly Democrats) are just being negative without providing solutions. Bush did that tonight... so let's see who catches on.

I don't know what it is, maybe it's my timing or the fact that I always tell them I'm a college student, but I never have any trouble getting a letter in to the editor of our city newspapers. My latest letter focuses on the AARP's anti-Republican stance on every issue, specifically regarding Social Security reform.

The letter appeared in today's Pittsburgh Tribune-Review (although edited down quite a bit.) If you don't want to click the link, then read on:

For those of you out there who are unaware of AARP's real position on Social Security ("The AARP position," Letters, April 13), it's quite simple and remains largely the same for every issue: If the GOP wants it, AARP doesn't.

Frankly, I don't know why AARP is even involved in the discussion of Social Security reform. All of the reform plans, agreed on by both Democrats and conservatives, say that none of the benefits of people 55 or older will be touched.

But AARP is intent on pushing its agenda -- and depriving college kids like me a choice for my future.

Mike Rubino Greensburg

It's no secret that Hillary Clinton plans on making a move for the Democratic nomination for the Presidency in 2008. People were saying that from the second she moved to NY, claimed to be Jewish, and became a Senator. But, moreso than Bill, she is viewed as being radically left. Out of the mainstream more than Kerry was. But we all learned after the 2004 election, that America isn't with the far left... it's in the center, and leaning to the right.

Hillary moved to NY to be Senator. She claimed to be Jewish because it made her look better with one of the libs' most loyal groups. She claims to love her husband although they are rarely seen together. And now she is working on claiming to be a centrist. Because if Arnold S., Guiliani and McCain have taught us anything, it's that you can be quite successful and be pretty close to the center of political views. But if you notice, all three of those moderates are also Republicans.

Rasmussen, one of the great pollsters of the last election, has started a new bi-monthly poll meter. This time he is tracking Hillary's ongoing struggle to shift to the center. So far, she is still 43% liberal, and, according to the polls, only 32% definitely voting for her (with another 37% definitely voting against her and 26% waiting to hear about a GOP candidate).

If you want to follow her on the journey to the center of the Earth (or at least politics) check out the poll.

Tonight Seton Hill's College Republicans got our first (and certainly not our last) big visitor on campus. Since we've chosen to focus this semester on promoting Social Security Reform, me and my colleagues have been working hard to get events and speakers on campus. Keith Schmidt, the state director for the Rick Santorum House, came to SHU last night to lead a talk on Social Sec. Reform and the problems behind the current system.


Keith Schmidt, ladies and gentlemen.

When he first arrived on campus at 6:00PM, the CR Board were waiting to greet him in front of Lynch auditorium. (For the uninformed, the board consists of me, Josh Knopp, Bryan Harmon, Emily Kasky, and Dr. Josh Sasmor). We then all ate dinner in the Greensburg room. Unfortunately it wasn't a very good meal in the dining hall last night, but Keith and his assistant Jason seemed to enjoy their pork and chili... Keith spoke to the board about how to fundraise on campus, and how important it is for us to provide the conservative voice for those on campus.

At 7:00PM we walked over to Lynch, a new venue for the College Republicans. We had arranged for a nice spread of cheese, crackers, fruit and cookies (with a little punch on the side.) As the folks filed in and filled up the bottom rows of the auditorium, it was apparent to me that we would have more than the usual number of CR loyals.

Keith began his presentation with saying a few words about the recently deceased Pope John Paul II (he was connected to the Pope through a doctor that once treated him.) He then delved in to his resume, and his experience working with long-time senator, Rick Santorum. Keith originally got in to politics as an intern with the Reagan/Bush campaign in 1980. He joined with Santorum in the early 1990's. It was in 1994 when Rick Santorum began talking about social security reform.

Here are some of the facts and issues he threw out to the audience:
• There are many ways to fix Soc. Sec., including raising taxes or cutting benefits. But logically, if you raise taxes you are in theory cutting benefits no matter what.
• Just merely tweaking the system isn't going to make it solvent forever, changing benefits or payout programs will fix things for five or ten or even twenty years, but we'll still be dealing with the issue again soon.
• The Soc. Sec. payroll tax has been raised 49 times since its conception in 1937. When founded it was a 2% payroll tax. Today it is 12.4% up to $90,000 earned.
• In 1945 there were 45 workers putting in to the system for every one retired person. Today it's 3 workers to one retiree, and by the time I retire it will be under 2 workers.
• Just 15% of wages in America are untaxed. Taxing this 15% will add just 3-5 years of solvency. But for anyone making upwards of $40,000 a year, you actually lose money in the system.
• When it was first instilled by FDR, life expectancy was 63 and the age for Soc. Sec. was still 65. It was never supposed to be for every retiree, but just for those who managed to live past their expected years. Because of this, savings in America has gone down.
• In 1983, savings in America was 10.8%. Today it is merely 1.4%. This means that more people will be dependent on Soc Security, rather than providing for themselves.
• If America chooses Personal Savings Accounts (which certainly have my endorsement!) then just 4% of the 12.4% of payroll tax will go into a personal account. The other 8.4% will go into the normal Soc. Sec. system.
• The system will be insolvent (aka completely out of money) by 2041. Each year we choose not to fix the system, it will cost $600 Billion dollars more to fix it when we finally get around to it.

Scary stats, for sure. All of his stats were provided by non-partisan research groups, this isn't spin. And it is for those reasons that the College Republicans are focusing on this for the Spring semester. I am happy to announce that this isn't the end of our efforts. A national politician has been confirmed to be coming to SHU on behalf of the CRs to lead a discussion on the topic... but more on this later...