Not Exactly Must-See TV

In some ways, there was more drama in front of Bush's podium: Members of the White House press corps last night threw off Bush's post-election proscription against follow-up questions, and tried repeatedly to get straight answers to their own individual questions as well as those of their fellow reporters.

Bush ordered up last night's press conference in a bold move to reclaim the spotlight, reassert his leadership and regain control of the national agenda, just as the press was increasingly focusing on congressional infighting and his dismal approval ratings -- and just before the inevitable, portentous assessments marking the end of his 60-day Social Security barnstorm and the first 100 days of his second term.

But what the spotlight showed was an increasingly assertive press corps in front of him, and behind him, at least literally, no one.

What He Said vs. What He Meant

Bush's short and meticulously crafted statement about his position on future Social Security benefits presented editors and reporters with a choice: Should they lead with what he said, or what he meant?

Most, thankfully, chose the latter.

Jim VandeHei and Michael A. Fletcher write in The Washington Post: "President Bush called on Congress last night to curtail future Social Security benefits for all but low-income retirees in an urgent new effort to address the popular program's shaky finances. . . .

"Bush said his plan would ensure that 'future generations receive benefits equal to or greater than the benefits today's seniors get.'"

But even after Social Security reaches the point that Bush refers to as bankruptcy, "benefits would be almost three-quarters what is currently promised, and considerably higher in inflation-adjusted terms than they are now," VandeHei and Fletcher write.

Richard W. Stevenson and Elisabeth Bumiller write in the New York Times: "Saying the retirement program is headed for 'bankruptcy,' a term his opponents say is an exaggeration, Mr. Bush edged tentatively -- but for the first time explicitly -- into the most politically explosive aspect of the debate over how to assure Social Security's long-term health: the benefit cuts or tax increases needed to balance the system's books as the baby boom generation ages and life expectancy increases."

David E. Rosenbaum and Robin Toner write in the New York Times: "The Social Security proposal President Bush seemed to embrace Thursday night to make the system solvent would have the effect of significantly limiting the rise in retirement benefits for most workers, analyses show. . . .

"Only people with the lowest wages would be distinctly better off under the president's plan than they would be if Social Security reserves were allowed to run out, as is projected happen in about 2040 or 2050. When there are no reserves left, enough money from Social Security taxes will be raised each year to pay about 70 percent to 80 percent of scheduled benefits."