Over at MaxSpeak, Max Sawicky warns of the bullshit we will probably see on Wednesday:
"Okay, maybe it’s not Shakespeare, but like Julius Caesar, we do have cause for concern. The 2005 Social Security trustees report is due out next Wednesday. It is important that people recognize that the projections in the report are made by the trustees, not the professional staff of the Social Security Administration (SSA). And four of the six trustees are political appointees of President Bush (e.g. Jack Snow and Elaine Chao). Among the two “independent” trustees is Thomas Savings, who has been vigorously pushing the case for Social Security privatization in recent weeks."
Meanwhile, David Brooks offers nothing new, as usual:
"Having skimmed decades of private-account proposals, Republicans did not appreciate how unfamiliar this idea would seem to many people. They didn't appreciate how beloved Social Security is, and how much they would have to show they love it, too, before voters would trust them to reform it. In their efforts to create a risk-taking, dynamic society, they didn't appreciate how many people, including conservatives, value security and safety."
Why didn't I think of that slogan? "Social Security Privitization: Offering a risk-taking, dynamic society" I'm sure the voters will love it. Also, Brooks seems genuinely pained that we all just couldn't agree there was a problem in the first place:
"More experienced negotiators might have put the solvency issue before the personal-accounts issue. That would have created a consensus on the need for change before we got to the divisive issue of how to fix the system."
Uh, I think that was exactly the strategy. Keep talking about a ginned up problem, declare a crisis and a need to "do something", steamroll a frightened public and cowed Congress with a right-wing plan that's been in the mill for years. Sounds like something...trying to put my finger on it....
Also, this is a gem:
"But the Democrats played the Yasir Arafat role at Camp David. They made no counteroffers. They offered no plan. They just said no."
Yes, asshole. They did. As did a lot of Republicans. And wasn't it GW Bush who "wasn't going to negotiate with himself"? What were those specifics again. You have a radical plan to "save" Social Security, huh? Let's here it, Tex.
"Fool me once, shame on....shame on you....fool me, uh..can't get fooled again!"
http://maxspeak.org/mt-bin/mt-tb.cgi/1217
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/15/opinion/15brooks.html?hp
I don't get some of this post. Brooks starts by pointing out that Republicans grossly misunderestimated (thought you'd like that) people's feelings about social security. Here you call that "nothing new", in a comment on my blog you tout the very same Republican problem. Does this make Brooks off his rocker?
By the by: I like the "Why didn't I think of that slogan line.
Then, Brooks points out that Republicans made a tactical error of rolling out the private accoutns idea before they had convinced people there was a crisis to solve. Yeah, they did that. Brooks isn't genuinely pained that we coudn't all agree there was a problem: he is pointing out that Republicans screwed up their legislative tactics by assuming everyone thought it was a problem when most people don't. He clearly is not focused on "the public" being wrong, he is focused on the Republicans screwing up.
He then points out that the Democrats played obstructionist. In your charming style, you call him an asshole and assert that they did have a plan. But Brooks is playing off an internal memo from James Carville where he stated plainly that Democrats were going to have to stop simply saying "no" and come up with a plan of their own. You call him an asshole for asserting the Dems have no plan. Meanwhile, a top Dem strategist is saying "We need to get a plan". Then you get over the course of the next two weeks quotes from Harold Ford "The Democrats are going to have to get a better message on Social Security.. our only response cannot be to say 'no'", and Ted Kennedy "It's a serious issue; we ought to address it" (note: ought to address it, Mike, not "we have a plan to address it").
So while I will await your post calling Rep. Ford and Sen. Kennedy assholes, I won't wait to see the non-existant Democrat Social Security plan.
Posted by: Max on March 21, 2005 04:29 PM