Homestead mailing list

[Gene GeRue <genegerue AT ruralize.com>]

Imagine this: On his next trip to Japan, President Bush visits the vault at 
the Bank of Japan, where that country's $712 billion in United States 
government bonds is stored. There, as the cameras roll, he announces that 
the bonds, backed by the full faith and credit of the United States, are, 
in fact, worthless i.o.u.'s. He does the same thing when he visits China 
and so on around the world, until he has personally repudiated the entire 
$2 trillion of United States debt held by foreigners.

Mr. Bush rehearsed just that act on Tuesday, when he visited the office of 
the federal Bureau of Public Debt in Parkersburg, W.Va. He posed next to a 
file cabinet that holds the $1.7 trillion in Treasury securities that make 
up the Social Security trust fund. He tossed off a comment to the effect 
that the bonds were not "real assets." Later, in a speech at a nearby 
university, he said: "There is no trust fund. Just i.o.u.'s that I saw 
firsthand."

Social Security takes in more money than it needs to pay current 
beneficiaries, and the excess is invested in the Treasury securities that 
Mr. Bush was discussing. They carry the same legal and political 
obligations as all other forms of Treasury debt, every penny of which has 
always been paid in full and on time.

In his speech, Mr. Bush went on to acknowledge that future generations 
would have to make good on the debt. But the intended meaning of the 
photo-op was clear. In the hope of persuading people to privatize Social 
Security - a move that would only add to the growing debt burden for future 
generations - Mr. Bush wants Americans to believe that the trust fund is a 
joke. But if the trust fund is a joke, so is the full faith and credit of 
the United States.

Fortunately, the governments, institutions and individuals who hold United 
States debt can tell a publicity stunt from a policy statement. Still, 
casting aspersions on a basic obligation of the United States government is 
insulting and irresponsible.

Source:
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/07/opinion/07thu3.html