Bush returns to his favorite subject

The president hit the campaign trail today, visiting Atlanta to, as Bush likes to put it, “catapult the propaganda.” Naturally, Bubble Boy policies will be in effect and the president will only see and hear from pre-screened sycophants.

What’s the issue this time? We’re back to Social Security. With several other political developments in the news the last couple of weeks, it’s easy to lose sight of the fact that, on Capitol Hill, the fight over Social Security continues unabated. The entertaining part is seeing the relevant players — all of them Republican — at loggerheads.

The White House’s top economic adviser said yesterday that President Bush will insist that any Social Security legislation include a fix to the program’s long-term financing problems, undercutting House leaders’ efforts to craft a compromise that ignores the solvency question.

Ben S. Bernanke, the new chairman of Bush’s Council of Economic Advisers, told reporters the president “will insist on maintaining the long-term solvency of the Social Security system, so that it can continue to provide benefits to retirees in the future.”

Asked if a solvency fix was inviolable, Bernanke said yes.

This is getting a little silly. House Republicans are planning to vote as early as September on a plan to finance private accounts through the existing Social Security trust-fund surplus. This approach would, by its sponsors own admission, make Social Security’s solvency issues considerably worse, add billions to the deficit, and wreak havoc on congressional budgeting (the trust-fund surplus currently finances the federal budget). It would also, necessarily, lead to benefit cuts for Social Security beneficiaries.

But the ridiculous part is Bush’s response. He rejects the House plan because it does not improve Social Security’s long-term solvency issue. Instead, the president prefers his approach, which, as it turns out, does not improve Social Security’s long-term solvency issue.

The entire debacle would be hilarious if it weren’t so sad.

Privatizing Social Security? Didn’t we beat that already?

It’s like a party guest that won’t leave. Seeing this post makes me think: oh, you’re still here?

  • We beat Bush’s privatization plan, but the Republican
    Congress snuck in a stealth version instead, pretty
    much under the radar, although it was mentioned here
    and there.

    The infuriating thing is that any nincompoop knows that
    long term financial stability and privatization are two
    completely different issues, but the Repigs won’t
    deal with them as such, largely because what they
    really want – privatization, aka profits for Wall Street –
    would be defeated on its own, and dealing with long
    term financial stability as a separate issue would be
    embarrassing, to say the least. After all, almost any
    plan would involve some cut in middle class benefits,
    and they haven’t finished with their tax cuts for the
    rich yet. Hard to do both at once – might wake the
    American people up.

    So we go around and around and around, endlessly,
    in this charade.

  • do you have any more news on the Denver Three?

    What a coincidence; another Carpetbagger regular just emailed me asking the same question. Unfortunately, there haven’t been any updates lately, but I’ll drop the gang a note this afternoon asking for a status check. I’ll let everyone know next week what I find out.

  • Just when I thought that this had gone away and I was starting to focus on other things. I’m just stating the obvious, but when poll after poll show that the American people don’t want privatization and the Republicans continue to persue the issue just shows how little concern they have for their constituents.

    And if anyone wonders about what effect having the privatization conversation is having. I know 3 people that depend on Social Security for their sole income and they are in favor of eliminating the program. If anyone wonders about what happens when the well of public discourse gets poisened I think that I have some pretty good examples.

  • Comments are closed.