The Sting, Part II: Getting Grandma
George W. Bush speaks on Social Security:
Bush believes that we need to explore new ways to ensure that Social Security remains strong and financially secure for America's children and grandchildren. He formed a bipartisan Commission to review Social Security and recommend reforms to put the system on sound financial ground. He has repeatedly stressed the need for modernization of the Social Security System. Bush has also proposed solutions to strengthen pension plans and enhance retirement security for all Americans.
Sounds very, well, patriotic. Nobody wants to mess with Social Security. Remember when Newt Gingrich tried to be honest about his plans for Social Security and almost lost his election in the 1980s? People don’t like it when you screw with their retirement money. Obviously, a change in tactics, if not strategy, would be required. Honesty was out of the question.
For a glimpse of the emerging strategy of screwing the seniors and still getting votes, check out this little excerpt from John Dean’s Nov. 7 article in FindLaw’s Writ, An Early Assessment By Leading Presidential Scholars of George W. Bush's Presidency: Part One
Bush's Budget Problem
Recognizing the importance of budgetary matters, the conference had a particularly lucid expert address the subject: University of Maryland professor, Brooking's Institute visiting fellow, and federal budget expert Allen Schick -- who contributed a must read paper. Schick's effort opens the door on Bush's budgetary tomfoolery (my word, not his).
Mincing no words, Schick explains exactly what Bush is doing with the staggering deficits he has run up with his aggressive military spending and massive tax cuts for upper income taxpayers:
[Bush is] aware of the doomsday projections that if current policy continues, a generation from now Social Security and Medicare will claim all of the federal revenue, leaving very little for the rest of the government. He wants to strip the government of future revenue, not in spite of these dire scenarios but because of them. He sees revenue privation as the only or best way to change the course of budgetary history….
As Schick puts it, "If Bush has his way, during his presidency many programs will be scaled back simply because there will not be enough money to go around, not because he has launched a frontal attack on government."
In other words, to shrink the federal government, Bush and the conservatives dare not try to repeal popular programs, for to repeal them would offend voters (and Congress would not likely have the courage to cut such programs). Instead, they plan to starve the programs to death.
Shrinking the federal government by putting it in hock will never be announced as their policy, but actions say it all. Nor has Bush told Americans the crapshoot (again my word, not Schick) he is taking with massive deficits.
So the new plan is to spend the program out of existence and grow the deficit as quickly as possible with fiscally unwise tax cuts and wars. In other words, say one thing and do another, leaving no words behind that could be disastrous in an election campaign. When critics attack the actions, they can easily be dismissed as “liberals” and marginalized. I wonder if these strategists privately refer to the voting base duped into voting against their own interests as “marks?”
Oh, and in light of the stock market decline that surpassed that of Herbert Hoover's and the all too familiar footage of CEO perp walks, are you surprised you don't hear much about "privatization" these days?
5:51:48 PM 
|
