President Bush sat down in the Oval Office yesterday to talk about his plans for Social Security with Post-Gazette national writer Maeve Reston and reporters from five other regional media organizations. His main proposal is to create personal investment accounts for younger workers, financed with a portion of their payroll taxes. Here's some of the back and forth (The reporters' questions have been paraphrased for brevity).

Q: What do you think of the legislative proposals that have been put forward [including the proposal last week by Sen. Chuck Hagel, R-Neb.]?
Bush: I think we're early in the process. There's a tendency to try and figure out the end game immediately once an issue gets raised, and we're just not quite there yet. I've got more work to do to make sure the dialogue moves forward.

Q: If the Democrats decide not to embrace any form of your proposal, could you move forward with Republican votes alone? What would be the consequences of that approach?
A: I think the Senate requires more of a coming together. The Senate, because of its filibuster rules, requires more of a consensus between the parties, and I believe the issue's going to require consensus amongst the parties.
Obviously, you can't ever write a bill where there's a 100 percent agreement. But I do believe it's important for the Democrats to come to the table. And I believe they will because they are not going to be able to look at an issue of this importance and not be part of the dialogue. It's important to come to the table, and I welcome their ideas.

Q: Are you seeing any signs of consensus with any Democrats?
A: I haven't spent that much time -- yet -- working the [Capitol] Hill for a particular piece of legislation, because we're not to that point yet. People say "Bush's plan" -- I haven't laid out a plan. I've laid out some ideas that I think ought to be considered for a plan, and that's what's important for people to know.
I just happen to believe that this is such a big issue and such an important issue that eventually people will come and say, "How can we work together to solve the issue?" As I say, it's early in the process; the dialogue is just beginning. There's been some hopeful feelers, as I understand it, from people wanting to make sure that their ideas are heard. So we'll see how it goes.
Again, I believe there will be a political consequence for people who do not want to participate in coming up with a solution. The American people expect us to work together, and I think the American people expect there to be the ability for everybody to put their ideas on the table.

Q: Is there a date by which the ideas have to be on the table?
A: Well, no. We want to work with members of Congress to help write a bill that can pass the Senate and the House. We'll be a part of the discussions.

Q: There was some confusion when you referred to personal investment accounts as an "add-on" in a recent Social Security [promotional] appearance [in Westfield, N.J.]. Would you be open to add-on personal accounts, as opposed to a personal accounts carved out of payroll taxes?
A: No, I think the "carve-out" is the way to go. What I was referring to in my speech, I was explaining to people that the capital in the personal account would yield a certain amount of interest, and that interest -- the monies would be in addition to a Social Security check you were receiving.

Q: So you would rule out add-on accounts?
A: In my judgment, the best way to go forward is to allow a personal account to be created out of the payroll taxes being paid into the system.

Q: Has it been frustrating that you haven't been able to get the same kind of bipartisan consensus on this issue that you did, for example, on several key issues as governor of Texas?
A: Yes, it has. The town [Washington] is heck of a lot more partisan than Austin [the Texas capital] was. Nevertheless, I've been heartened by the fact, for example, that we got the No Child Left Behind Act [passed by Congress], which was a bipartisan piece of legislation.
Obviously, when it came to foreign policy -- strong bipartisanship; the resolution about [going to war in] Iraq was bipartisan. A lot of people were wondering how serious I was on this issue. There was, I think, some initial concern that [I] was just going to lay it out there in the State of the Union [address] and then blame Congress for nothing getting done. And they've now realized that I'm very serious about this. [We'll] campaign hard on this issue.

Q: Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid [D-Nev.] said if he could ask you one question, it would be, 'Why doesn't he take [Social Security account] privatization off the table, and let's talk about solvency for Social Security? What would you say to him?
A: I would say, "I'm willing to talk about solvency; please come to the table," and I think it's very important for people to consider personal accounts. It's a concept that I think is very important to be discussed. Because I understand that a better rate of return will allow an individual worker to get closer to the promises the government has made -- promises, by the way, that I believe the government can't keep.
And so I welcome the notion of permanent solvency. Not solvency that says this is a Band-aid fix, but solvency that is permanent. [If Reid's] got some ideas, I'm looking forward to hearing them ..."