At the [tag]president[/tag]’s press conference yesterday, a reporter noted that Bush had “failed” to achieve the major goals of his second term, most notably privatizing [tag]Social Security[/tag]. The president insisted that he hasn’t “given up” on his agenda, and still has “two years left.”
For [tag]Bush[/tag], it wasn’t a casual remark — he still hasn’t given up on one of the biggest political fiascos of his presidency.
More than a year after Social Security reform faded from the political radar screen, the debate erupted anew [this week], as Democrats seized on news that President Bush hopes to revive an unpopular proposal to make changes in the national retirement program.
In recent days, Bush has said Social Security remains one of the “big items” he wants to tackle next year and he continues to “believe that a worker, at his or her option, ought to be allowed to put some of their own money . . . in a private savings account, an account that they call their own.”
“I couldn’t believe it. What an opening,” Democratic pollster Celinda Lake said. “I think he had an out-of-body experience.”
The Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee issued a release, saying, “Just when you thought your Social Security was safe from privatization, George Bush is bringing back his plan to privatize Social Security and cut guaranteed benefits.”
To be sure, this isn’t exactly new. In June, the president, in reference to his Social Security scheme, said, “If we can’t get it done this year, I’m going to try next year. And if we can’t get it done next year, I’m going to try the year after that, because it is the right thing to do.” Shortly thereafter, White House Chief of Staff Josh Bolten “stressed his interest” in paving the way for a renewed push on Social Security.
Can someone explain to me what on earth the White House is thinking?
Rep. Tom Davis III (R-Va.), who opposed Bush’s privatization plan last year, said, “I guess you could argue if it gets Iraq off the front page, it was probably a good thing at this point.” He added, however, that a new White House push on the issue “is not going anywhere. This president never likes to back down. I think he’s putting it on the table, but I don’t think anybody’s going to pick it up.”
Obviously, that’s true. In case there were any lingering doubts about the popularity of privatization, the AARP released a survey this week showing that voters remain strongly opposed to the White House approach, and nearly as importantly, so are the vast majority of political candidates, from both parties, who responded to the AARP’s Voter Guide questionnaire.
With this in mind, what, exactly, is the point of even trying to reintroduce the issue before the midterm elections? It’s hard to imagine that the GOP is so afraid of talking about Iraq that they’d prefer to put Social Security privatization on the frontburner again. Have we really reached a point in which the Bush gang would rather the Dems attack Social Security privatization than have the Dems hit the GOP on national security issues?
If the White House really wants to have this debate all over again, I’m game. For that matter, as No More Mister Nice Blog noted, “Hey, and maybe after that he can rehire Brownie! And reopen the Terri Schiavo case! And sell some ports to Dubai!”