Did George Bush use Social Security funds to support the Iraq War?

1. What “borrowing” from Social Security actually means

Since the 1980s Social Security surpluses have been converted by law into interest‑bearing special Treasury bonds; the Treasury then spends the cash into the general fund and finances deficits with those dollars—so in a broad technical sense the government “borrows” from the trust fund, but those transactions are legal obligations of the Treasury to repay principal plus interest when the trust fund redeems the bonds (PolitiFact, Market Realist) ^{[1] [2]}.

2. Where the $1.37 trillion meme comes from and why it misleads

The viral figure that Bush “borrowed $1.37 trillion” traces to extrapolated claims and a 2009 newsletter cited in later circulation; fact‑checkers note that counting and attribution problems make the meme misleading—some analyses give a smaller figure (for example about $708 billion per one source), and treating all borrowing as if it funded particular policies (Iraq, tax cuts) oversimplifies how the unified federal budget works (meetbeagle, PolitiFact) ^{[3] [1]}.

3. Did Bush “never pay it back”?

Available reporting emphasizes that the special‑issue Treasury bonds held by the Social Security Trust Fund are repaid with interest when the Commissioner redeems them; they are not “stolen” and there is no record of misuse of Social Security program funds—claims that the amount was never repaid ignore the statutory structure of the bonds and later redemption timelines (thinkadvisor; meetbeagle) ^{[4] [3]}.

4. The practical effect: deficits, tax cuts and war spending

Independent reporting and analysis show the Bush years increased deficits through tax cuts, Medicare Part D and wars; those larger general deficits coincided with Treasury needing cash that came from general receipts (including the cash obtained by issuing the trust‑fund bonds), so critics say the administration “didn’t pay for” the Iraq war even if not by criminally raiding a separate Social Security pocket (PBS Frontline; EPI on budget pressures) ^{[5] [6]}.

5. Two competing ways people interpret the facts

One viewpoint (meme/friendly critics) treats the trust‑fund accounting as moral theft: surplus payroll taxes should have remained untouched and were instead used to pay for tax cuts and wars. The opposing, technical view (fact‑checkers, Treasury practice defenders) stresses the legal framework: converting surpluses into Treasury bonds and using that cash for government operations is standard, transparent by statute, and not evidence of illicit diversion (PolitiFact; Market Realist; ThinkAdvisor) ^{[1] [2] [4]}.

6. What the sources don’t settle and remaining limits

Available sources do not mention a definitive year‑by‑year accounting that assigns specific dollars from trust‑fund bond cash to particular line items like “Iraq War” versus “tax cuts”; they also do not show any legal finding that the Bush administration misused Social Security program funds (not found in current reporting). Analysts differ on exact cumulative amounts; multiple sources warn against treating the unified budget’s flows as direct, itemized transfers to single programs ^{[1] [3] [2]}.

7. Bottom line for readers

Factually: the government did use Social Security surplus receipts (converted to Treasury securities) as part of the pool of cash that financed federal deficits during Bush’s terms, but that is a legal, longstanding budget practice and not the same as a secret raid or illegal spending of Social Security trust assets; the sweeping viral claim that Bush “borrowed $1.37 trillion to pay for Iraq and never paid it back” simplifies and misstates the statutory mechanics and repayment obligations (PolitiFact; Market Realist; ThinkAdvisor) ^{[1] [2] [4]}.