Your Weekly Rush

Which I haven't done in a while. But here we go.

Good Old Rush was reacting to the State of the Union this week, which he liked. What he didn't like was the Democrats not applauding President Bush. I mean a few years ago President Clinton suggested investing some of the trust fund in more lucrative investments (of course that was before the bubble burst and Enron). That's obviously exactly the same as starting an expensive program of individual retirement accounts. The Democrats clapped for Clinton and didn't clap for President Bush.

Here's another lie. "there never was a surplus, by the way. It was a projected surplus. It was a paper surplus. It never... Well, you know the story on that." Well no Rush, not exactly, you filthy liar. There is a surplus and it is invested in United States Government Treasuries. You've been telling this lie that there is no surplus for years now--but it is three kinds of BS.

Anyway this is another line of attack on Social Security, suggesting that Clinton wanted to do the same thing that Bush does. But it is at best a half truth. Not even that much I'd say--maybe an eight truth.

Down in the Subway

By the way, now I happen to be listening to Yaz or Yazoo (depending on what side of the pond you are from). I'm not sure that's a step up or a step down.

Anyway go check out this post from Motely Cow on President Bush and Iraq. It's interesting (if brief), and I hope the dude continues to write.

Round the Horn and Out of the Blue

Here's another set of tasty omelets for you to enjoy (yeah I'm running out of metaphors).

To start off we have a delicious article on Ann Coulter from Republican Sinners, a blog that joined the Liberal Coalition some time ago (apparently), but I missed them. So we apologize, and encourage you to all go over and pay them a visit.

Edwardpig has some good comments on the Birth Tax, smothered in gravy and served with a side of flapjacks.

Happy Furry Puppy Story time has a story on the legal troubles of members of washed up bands. Is it coincidental that I'm listening to Jesus Jones as I type this? Yes it is.

I miss Respectful of Otters, but I guess it is on hiatus.

Ricks Cafe Americaine has confirmation that unemployed Germans can be forced into a life of prostitution. I heard this story earlier this week and openly doubted it, but it turns out I was wrong. To those who were involved I would like to say I'm sorry, but a commentator is not allowed to show weakness so instead I'm going to pretend I believed in the welfare hooker story the whole time.

T. Rex's Guide to Life has a well done review of the State of the Union, pretty much the whole thing, which shows a greater intestinal fortitude than I possess.

First Draft has a review of Scott McClellan's latest press conference on behalf of the President.

Words on a Page has some reactions to the nomination of Alberto Gonzales to Attorney General, and it's depressing.

The Yellow Doggeral Democrat also has comments on the Alberto Gonzales situation, focusing on the failure of Democrats to stand up to the Bush White House.

And that's it for this week. Be back later on with Down in the Subway and probably some other posts as well.

Saving Social Security

President Bush wants to Save Social Security. The Republican Party wants to Save Social Security. Republicans in Congress want to Save Social Security. Seeing a trend? So let's check in with one of the Presidents Supporters, the guy at Power Line, a conservative blog, to see what he thinks about Social Security. Power Line blogged the debate last night (while I was busy with lemons and cinderblocks), and here is his reaction to the Social Security Section of the State of the Union.

8:28--Good idea to cite various proposals to fix SS, mostly from Dems. For now, at least, he's pretty much agnostic. The real problem, of course, is the transition to a new system. This isn't the fault of the new system; it is what makes Social Security such a diabolically bad system. It's like a drug addiction; there is no convenient opportunity to terminate the program. Why personal accounts are a better deal: rate of return is always a big argument, but the more important point, I think, is ownership. The money is yours, and the government can never take it away. You can pass it on. I think that's the point that has to be pounded home.

To me it sounds like Power Line doesn't so much want to Save Social Security. It sounds almost like he'd be happier seeing it go away, replaced by this new program that, Power Line, at least, seems to see as fundementally different from Social Security.

There's the rub--Republicans (for the most part) don't want to admit that they want to Destroy Social Security. That wouldn't play well. So instead of having an honest debate over whether or not Social Security is a good idea (in which both side has some good arguments), we are debating a plan to Save Social Security put together by people who's ideology goes completely in the opposite direction.

Everything In It's Right Place

Which is the (great!) song I happen to be listening to. Anyway I'm about to point to some comments by Joshua Michah Marshall, who's work on the upcoming Social Security debate has been inspiring. In fact if you just read Talking Points Memo and Paul Krugman's columns over at the New York Times you'll be well armed to handle the Social Security debate. On the other hand, neither of those guys is willing to bring you the 1910's plutocrat perspective on issues of the day, so I suggest you continue reading this weblog as well.

Anyway Talking Point's Memo has some reactions to the State of the Nation as well.

But the truth is he's going to try to siphon off one out of every three dollars that goes into Social Security -- the money that goes to pay those benefits he's telling you 55-and-over folks not to worry about.

Remember, he says the program's in trouble in 13 years and bankrupt in less than forty as it stands now. And now he's telling people who are 55 and over that they can rely on the program with complete confidence even though, under his new plan, it'll have to make do with 2/3 of its current revenues.

Does those two facts compute to you? You think that might put a little stress on the system? Even if the president just decides to pull out the national Visa card and borrow a few trillion more dollars to make up the shortfall, that will just come back and hit the program in other ways and more than soon enough to hit people a decade from retirement. People who are 55 today will be alive in 10, 20, 30 and more years from now. And like so many of President Bush's promises this is one he couldn't keep even if he wanted to.

Those are some good questions. I suppose it does point towards Bush and his followers wanting to solve the Social Security problem "permanently."

Don't Fear The Reaper

That's the name of a Blue Oyster Cult Song (covered recently by the Beautiful South). In President Bush's case that might be translated "Don't Fear the Potential Problems Huge Deficits might Cause down the Road." President Bush gave the State of the Union last night and, as you might expect, he put his Social Security plan front and center.

Fixing Social Security permanently will require an open, candid review of the options. . . .

I will work with members of Congress to find the most effective combination of reforms. I will listen to anyone who has a good idea to offer. (Applause.) We must, however, be guided by some basic principles. We must make Social Security permanently sound, not leave that task for another day. We must not jeopardize our economic strength by increasing payroll taxes. We must ensure that lower-income Americans get the help they need to have dignity and peace of mind in their retirement. We must guarantee there is no change for those now retired or nearing retirement. And we must take care that any changes in the system are gradual, so younger workers have years to prepare and plan for their future.

So there's at least one option he's not going to leave on the table; that of increasing revenue. One has to assume that this would also include the suggestion that we raise the $90,000 cap on Social Security taxes.

Salon's war room takes on this facet of the Bush mentality with some very pointed comments.

So that's the problem. Beginning in 2053, Social Security will either need to supplement its income or cut its expenses. It would be easy -- mathematically, if not politically -- to do either. The government could supplement Social Security's income by raising taxes or diverting funds from other programs, or it could cut Social Security expenses by reducing benefits. But George Bush doesn't like those kinds of choices. Again and again over the last four years, he has cut taxes and increased spending. When Joe Biden and John Kerry suggested that Bush pay for the war in Iraq by rolling back some of his tax cuts, the White House refused. Bush wanted the war, and he wanted the tax cuts, and he got both.

His Social Security proposal is of a piece. Bush said all sorts of options for repairing the system are "on the table," but then he took one off: The idea of raising Social Security taxes is not one he'll consider. Bush wants to let younger workers divert some of their Social Security taxes to individual investment accounts, but to do that he would need to come up with a way to pay the current benefits those taxes cover. He won't raise other taxes to do that, so the "transition costs" will simply be added -- by the trillion -- to the massive budget deficit Bush has built up over the last four years.

This kind of reminds me of how old Rush Limbaugh was talking right after the last election, when President Bush was swept into office. He kept going on and on about how now the adults were in charge once more. I have to admit it doesn't sound very "adult" to call for an enormous new program without considering how to pay for it. It doesn't sound very "adult" to rack up huge debts and pass them on to our children. But maybe Rush Limbaugh and I have different ideas of what constitutes adult behavior.

I'm having a Hard time Following this

Michelle Malkin, who has argued that America should feel free to consider interment camps for Muslim / Arab Americans, writes a somewhat confusing article today. Writing a brief synopsis may help me figure it out.

Michael Jackson's dad (Joe Jackson) says that Michael Jackson's legal troubles stem from racism. Snoop Dogg is a huge success in America despite being Black and being a less than stellar role model. We need to be more intolerant in America.

OK. Yeah I guess the last two sentences go together. We need to distrust black celebrities more, and be less tolerant of black celebrities when they do things that are immoral or wrong (such as getting plastic surgery or rapping about killing undercover cops (on your first album, over a decade ago).

I guess that must be Ms. Malkin's point, since she only found black celebrities to pick on. I mean I guess the actions of, say, Madonna or Justin Timberlake aren't worth watching. I'm surprised she didn't add Armstrong Williams to the mix. After all he is black persona and he let us down too.

State of the Union

Tonight is the State of the Union and I won't be watching it. Instead I have developed an experiment that I believe will be equally painful. First of all I will put my foot in a tub of some kind. I will then balance a lemon on my foot. I will then take a cinder block and drop it on the lemon, crushing it and causing it's juice to pour out. I will repeat for an hour and 15 minutes. Then I will enjoy a cool refreshing class of foot lemonade.

I'm sure some people will be watching it though. And of course people are already writing about it, basically trying to put it in historical context (before the speech is given, which, you have to admit, is kind of a trick).

Jeff Shesol, writing at the New York Times, considers not the State of the Union but the Response to the State of the Union. And his suggestion? Drop it.

It's not as crazy (or as anti-Democrat) as it first sounds. For one thing nobody pays much attention to the response. For another it's not surrounded by the same kind of pomp and circumstance as the State of the Union.

When the speech is over, the networks cut to a cramped room somewhere inside (or, it appears, underneath) the Capitol. The flag in the backdrop seems real enough, but the leather-bound volumes in the bookcase look fake. It is not an auspicious environment for a call to action. There is no audience; there will be no applause.

The other problem with the speech is that it is usually dull. A laundry list (just like the State of the Union actually). But the difference is that while the President is likely to be able to get his laundry list enacted, the Response has less power.

Of course this last argument only applies in those situations where the Presidency and the Congress are held by the same party. During much of the 80's and the 90's that wasn't the case. So I'm not sure about that argument. And it seems like moving the speech out of the basement of the capital and to a forum with lots of people (possibly on the west coast) might fix the first problem.

At any rate it's something to consider.

Iraq Calling

Because you can never have enough references to The Clash.

I may get around to reviewing Conservative reactions to the Iraqi election, but I'm not enthusiastic about it. Basically they all boil down to "See, if we had listened to you smelly liberals, this never would have happened." There are responses to that, but they all require a considerable dose of pessimism and I'm trying to follow the advice of Gambit and choosing "TO LAUGH."

And you thought the dopey use of all caps was confined to the internet. Nope, that particular advance in typographical science has been around for years, possibly centuries. I'm to busy too look it up but I think some of our revolutionary pamphlets and broadsides may have used all caps to emphasize certain words. So there you go.

Anyway, E. J. Dionne has some remarks on the Iraqi election which, I think, are a good combination of optimism and negativism.

. . . even opponents of the war and critics of President Bush should not be cynical about the immense courage shown by so many Iraqis, and by the troops protecting them. Nor should they -- we -- be cynical about the obvious superiority of even a flawed form of democracy over dictatorship. As John F. Kennedy might have put it, we observed on Sunday not a victory of party but a celebration of freedom.

There is concern, however, about what will happen in the Sunni controlled areas of Iraq, where voting largely didn't take place, in part because of threats of violence. And in part because some Sunni Leaders feel that the new Iraq doesn't hold a place for them. The Sunni's have ruled Iraq for a long time; it's not unreasonable to wonder how the Kurds and the Shi'ites will deal with them now that they are no longer in power.

There are also concerns about how well the new government can perform. "Democracies also have to deliver the goods. Germany's Weimar Republic fell to Hitler in the 1930s because of severe economic problems combined with a sense among many Germans that democracy was a foreign imposition. Sound eerily familiar?"

At any rate, while there is reason for hope, there is also a need for a certain hard-headedness in looking at the days and years ahead.

Inspiring Words

Some of you might be a little down, what with conservative triumphalism and the possibility that Alberto Gonzales might be our next Attorney General. Well in the spirit of cheering people up, we'd like to present the inspirational speech Gambit (of the X-Men) made to Dirge (a villian with misery causing powers) in Uncanny X-Men #382 (as written by Chris Claremont).

Dere's sadness in the world, sure. But I choose to see the joy. The miracle is that we live. The responsibility of living is that we try to make the world a little better. Dirge, he don't see dat. Best he figures, I cry, I bury myself so deep in grief I become dead myself. Ain't dat easy, mon brave. I love these people. I love Rogue. I choose t'honor their lives an' what dey mean t' me wit' a celebration. My soul won't ever be lost, Dirge - because now an' always, I choose TO LAUGH!

Thanks to The X-Axis, without whom these inspiring words might have been lost.

Social Security Sanity

The incredible Paul Krugman writes another solid editorial on Social Security Phase out today, making a point I've made before (which I probably ripped off of him).

They can rescue their happy vision for stock returns by claiming that the Social Security actuaries are vastly underestimating future economic growth. But in that case, we don't need to worry about Social Security's future: if the economy grows fast enough to generate a rate of return that makes privatization work, it will also yield a bonanza of payroll tax revenue that will keep the current system sound for generations to come.

Alternatively, privatizers can unhappily admit that future stock returns will be much lower than they have been claiming. But without those high returns, the arithmetic of their schemes collapses.

It really is that stark: any growth projection that would permit the stock returns the privatizers need to make their schemes work would put Social Security solidly in the black.

It's a little bit like the old "heads you win, tails I lose" scheme I used to play as a kid. Other kids loved to play that with me, but it took it's tole. In the seventh grade alone I lost $52,304.25 to that game.

The Monolithic Left

Dennis Prager has nothing to worry about, apparently. Although he has written about the coming Civil War between Religious Righties and atheist Lefties, apparently it's a done deal. You see, according to his latest column, The Left is Worthless.

And why are we worthless? We do not recognize evil. Apparently a holocaust survivor this last week stated, "Someone who does not know the difference between good and evil is worth nothing." I'm not sure I would disagree with that.

And since the left is fine with Saddam Hussein and Fidel Castro, we are worthless. Clearly Castro and Hussein are evil, and we do not recognize that evil, so we are worthless.

Of course there are a few points one might make to counter this particular arguments. One I hint at in my title. The left isn't monolithic. Some on the left are comfortable seeing Saddam and Fidel as good guys who have been targeted by the imperialistic USA. Many many many more on the left would strongly disagree with that interpretation of the situation. Are we all to be held accountable for the opinions of a few?

Let me put it another way. Some on the right think that it is OK and even desirable to assassinate doctors who perform abortions. Most on the right do not think that is ok. So who should we hold accountable? Some monolithic right, or the few individuals responsible for committing such acts?

Another chink in this argument is putting Castro and Hussein in the same essay. Because obviously we have followed different strategies in dealing with these dictators. We invaded Iraq; we have left Cuba largely alone (except for our embargo of course). Why are we willing to accept the suffering under Castro and not under Hussein (and of course this barely scratches the surface of countries I could name, including some supporting by the United States).

A third chink in the argument is the assertion that the left doesn't recognize evil. On the contrary the left is easily as moralistic as the right, albeit on different issues. For example, the torture inflicted in Abu Ghraib or Guantenemo was quickly condemned by the left, while the right was busy comparing it to fraternity stunts.

In fact, looked at a certain way, hoping to incite conservatives to start a second civil war could be looked at, in a way, as evil.

Look at the Media

Last week we covered the Press Conference President Bush held, including this interesting question, "Senate Democratic leaders have painted a very bleak picture of the U.S. economy. Harry Reid was talking about soup lines, and Hillary Clinton was talking about the economy being on the verge of collapse. Yet, in the same breath, they say that Social Security is rock-solid and there's no crisis there. How are you going to work -- you said you're going to reach out to these people -- how are you going to work with people who seem to have divorced themselves from reality?"

Well Media Matters for America has some insight into the guy (Jeff Gannon) who asked the question. Turns out he's more or less who you would assume him to be based on that question. Apparently Gannon works for Talon News, which is a very tiny right wing website, and is a regular poster at Free Republic.

In other news, here's another argument suggesting that Maggie Gallagher and others shouldn't be held accountable for taking Government money to express their opinions. After all NPR takes all kinds of government money, and we don't find them objectionable. Yep. Of course National Public Radio sort of gives it away right there in their name, don't they? Unlike Maggie Gallagher and Armstrong Williams who didn't really tell anybody they were shilling for the Bush Administration.

Election Day

I'm filled with mixed feelings about the Elections in Iraq, but not mixed desires. I hope that the election is a success (certainly it looks good based on what has been reported so far). But, while part of me is heartened by what happened yesterday, another part of me is concerned that this may be just the an up day in a much larger catastrophe.

Still is there is to be any hope at all, it is in what happened yesterday.

The New York Times also reviewed the election, saying;

Yet today, along with other Americans, whether supporters or critics of the war, we rejoice in a heartening advance by the Iraqi people. For now at least, the multiple political failures that marked the run-up to the voting stand eclipsed by a remarkably successful election day.

But once the votes are fully counted and the new governing and constitution-writing bodies begin their work, those errors, particularly the needless estrangement of mainstream Sunni Arabs and their political leaders, must be urgently addressed. In the longer run, this election can only be counted as a success if it helps lead to a unified Iraq that avoids civil war and attracts a broad enough range of Iraqis to defend itself against its enemies without requiring long-term and substantial American military help.

That day has now become easier to envision. But it still appears very far off.

We'll just have to hope. Oh, and keep the fire on the Bush Administration so they don't get any bright ideas about going somewhere else in the region.

A Higher Standard

As many of you know, Alberto Gonzales is being considered for the Attorney General of the United States. As you probably also know, Gonzales in his current role, has been an enabler of torture (although he has since recanted, as has President Bush). Nevertheless, Gonzales helped create a legal climate in which the United States of America has tortured individuals, both in Iraq and in Guantenemo.

I'm not going to waste your time with a long argument about why torture is indefensible, on both a moral and a practical level (One of the more frustrating things about this debate is how those who favor torture portray themselves as hardheaded grownups. In reality, they often seem to me as operating in a childish revenge driven mindset. But that is neither here nor there.).

Instead I just ask you to consider what America means and ask yourself if torture reflects well on what America means.

It reminds me of a line from the West Wing episode "Someone's Going to Emergency, Someone's Going to Jail," spoken by Sam Seaborne. He is responding to treason committed by an American in giving secrets to the Soviets during the Cold War. But I can see an application to this day as well.

This country is an idea. And one that's lit the whole world for two centuries. And treason against that idea is not just a crime against the living. This crime holds the graves of people who have died for it. Who gave what Lincoln called the last full measure of devotion.

Consider once more if torture reflects well on the idea of America. And consider if the man who held the rhetorical cloaks of the torturers should be this nations attorney general.

New Quote

As previously mentioned we are now changing the format only every other week, and this is an off week. So another week with the monster. Also updated the Quotes Page.