Nodding off in my recliner in front of the TV today, I was shook back to my senses as the channel broke away to cover Obama’s speech before a group of Senior’s in Gresham, Oregon. Although it was the novice Senator’s voice I heard, the words sounded more like those I heard from George W. Bush on fixing Social Security just a few short years ago.

Senator Obama, mid way in his first term and presumed to have pretty much wrapped up the nomination for President from the Democrat Party, has been very vocal in his opposition to the President’s plan to save the Social Security System by privatizing a portion of it. In fact, in today’s speech he said,

“Let me be clear: privatizing Social Security was a bad idea when George W. Bush proposed it. It’s a bad idea today. It would cost a trillion dollars to implement at the front end, and would put the retirement plans of millions of Americans at risk on a volatile Wall Street. That’s why I stood up against this plan in the Senate, and that’s why I won’t stand for it as President.”

Of course, Obama doesn’t say his plan is “privatizing,” but reviewing his claims and comparing them to the failed 2005 attempt to “fix” Social Security reveals some striking similarities.

Obama said, “Social Security is strong, but as more baby boomers retire, the long-term cash-flow needs to be addressed. We have to make sure Social Security is there for future generations.”

President Bush said, “Social Security is sound for today’s seniors and for those nearing retirement, but it needs to be fixed for younger workers – our children and grandchildren.”

Obama says, “We have an obligation to secure the future of one of the most successful programs in our history.”

Bush said, “Social Security was one of the great moral successes of the 20th century by providing a critical foundation of income for retired and disabled workers.”

Obama says, “Here’s my plan. Right now, the Social Security payroll tax only applies to the first $102,000 a worker makes. I think the best way forward is to adjust the cap on the payroll tax so that people like me pay a little bit more and people in need are protected.”

Bush said, “I subscribe to the idea put forward, interestingly enough, by a Democrat, a fellow named Pozen, who believes that the poorest of our citizens ought to have their benefits increased by wage, at the rate wages increase. I think the richest one percent ought to have their benefits indexed on price. And I think it ought to be scaled up in between.”

Obama says, “we’re not going to help folks reach retirement unless we encourage savings… That’s why I’ve proposed automatic workplace pensions. There will be no red tape or complicated forms - employers will provide a direct deposit of a small percentage of each paycheck into your account. You can add to it, or you can opt out at any time.”

Bush said, “we ought to make it a better deal for younger workers by allowing younger workers to take some of their own payroll taxes and set it aside in what is called a voluntary personal savings account… if you want to, you can put some of your own money aside. You don’t have to. If you’re uncomfortable with watching your money grow with a conservative mix of bonds and stocks, you don’t have to do that. You can keep it the way — into the system. And you’ll get your check. If you’re in the bottom 30 percent, your benefits over time will grow at wages. If you’re in the top 1 percent, they’ll grow with inflation. And if you’re somewhere in between, they’ll grow depending upon your income, but greater than the rate of inflation. Secondly, it’s called a personal account. That means you own it. It’s an account the government cannot take away.”

While there are operational differences in achieving strength in Social Scurity and for those who will retire tomorrow, the basics appear strikingly similar.

Both agree that Social Security has been a good idea.

Both agree that Social Security is in trouble and needs “fixing.”

Both propose individual savings from an employees paycheck.

Obama proposes raising the cap on payroll taxes to have higher wage earners pay in more.

Bush proposes higher wage earners benefits increase less than those at the lower end of the pay scale.

Both will give lower earners more benefit and wealthier earners less.

Bush said, back in 2005,

“And there are other ideas on the table. I asked people to bring them forth — you’ve got a good idea, step up with it, I’m more than willing to listen.”

What he received in reply was,

“Let me be clear: privatizing Social Security was a bad idea when George W. Bush proposed it. It’s a bad idea today. It would cost a trillion dollars to implement at the front end, and would put the retirement plans of millions of Americans at risk on a volatile Wall Street. That’s why I stood up against this plan in the Senate, and that’s why I won’t stand for it as President.”

And yet, his plan sounds eerily similar to the one he claims was a “bad idea.”

Where were his proposals for “change” back in 2005 when asked for? Although not in the US Senate, surely he could have either called the White House or sent a proposal through any of the Democrats then fighting Social Security reform, instead of offering alternatives.

Strange thing about political campaigns, they often feature rehashed proposals the candidate vehemently opposed once, until they change the wording a bit and slightly tweak the method.

Now, all we can do is sit back and see if the gullible public falls for the rhetoric because a false messiah calls for it.