Crisis This Battle is About
The Republicans have already made clear that they intend to continue their scorched earth policy, and that Democratic input and support is not only unimportant, it is considered an outright negative - just witness their disgraceful handling of the 9/11 Commission's legislation. Now they are hoping to destroy Social Security, the very bedrock of America's middle class, and a program they have hated since its inception, as a leaked copy of their strategy memo made clear by saying,
"For the first time in six decades, the Social Security battle is one we can win..."
But we can do more than promise you a fight: we can tell you that we have already begun, and that we already have them on the ropes.
A "Dead Horse" or Just a Lame Duck?
There has been a great deal of talk about the tendency of second terms to sink into lame duck ineffectiveness. Conventional wisdom has held that such a decline in stature does not occur until the last two years of the presidency, but as one Bush supporter put it in warning (
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/6818606/site/newsweek/ ) the President against privatization as a priority, "A mandate lasts about 15 minutes in this town."
In this case, however, it may have happened before he has even been sworn in (
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A19257-2005Jan18.html ):
"House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Bill Thomas (R-Calif.) predicted yesterday that partisan warfare over Social Security will quickly render President Bush's plan 'a dead horse' and called on Congress to undertake a broader review of the problems of an aging nation.
"Thomas, one of Capitol Hill's most powerful figures on tax policy, is the highest-ranking House Republican official to cast doubt on the president's plan for creating individual investment accounts. He said that as an alternative, he will consider changes such as replacing the payroll tax as Social Security's financing mechanism and adding a savings plan for long-term or chronic care as 'an augmentation to Social Security payments.'"
Now, in addition to the question of whether privatization can go through comes another series of questions: if it cannot go through, can Bush find a way to back down without utter humiliation, since he is already so deeply invested, and more so every day? Would he and Rove be too arrogant to take such an out? Furthermore, would Rove allow this mutiny to stand, knowing that everything on their agenda is tough and largely unpopular and that none of it will go through if the Congress does not have a proper fear of Rove in them?
In any case, Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid pounced:
"The President's plan is a dead horse not because of partisan politics but because it is a privatization plan based on massive benefit cuts, risky Wall Street accounts and $2 trillion in new debt. It will undermine Social Security at a time when we should be looking to strengthen the program and help Americans save."
True enough.
With every passing day, another House Republican seems to buckle under Democratic pressure to disavow privatization. One Republican even told his local radio station that (
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2005_01_09.php#004401),
"Right now, to be very candid with you, we don't have broad Republican support let alone bipartisan support for plan that was outlined during the campaign."
Perhaps that is because the DCCC has been needling Republicans at every turn, and they know that there is only much more to come. For example, Newsweek chronicles our hit (
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6831897/site/newsweek/)on Connecticut Republican Rob Simmons:
"A veteran of the Vietnam-era Army and CIA covert ops, Rep. Rob Simmons of Connecticut knows how to survive in perilous situations - such as the one he finds himself in as a moderate Republican in a Democratic district. When George W. Bush put Social Security 'reform' at the top of his presidential wish list, Simmons executed a tactical retreat. Asked by reporters whether he would vote to divert payroll-tax receipts into private savings accounts - the controversial core of the Bush concept - Simmons declared: 'I would not consider that something I would support.' His avowal won praise from some bipartisan-minded Democrats.
"But not Rep. Rahm Emanuel. The new chair of the Democrats' campaign committee in the House, a Chicagoan reared in the House of Daley, he ordered an immediate strike. 'We did some quick research and found some stuff,' Emanuel said - including a letter that Simmons had signed in May 2001 supporting 'personal retirement accounts' for younger workers paying into Social Security. Emanuel blasted e-mails and faxes to local newspapers in eastern Connecticut and talked his way onto drive-time radio in Hartford. Simmons argued that the drain on the budget caused by the war on terrorism justified the shift. No way, said Emanuel (nicknamed 'Rahm-bo' by his allies), who then lobbed the all-purpose accusation of flip-floppery. 'How can seniors in Norwich or Groton trust Rob Simmons with their Social Security checks,' Emanuel asked, 'when there's no telling what his next position will be?'"
A separate pair of hits on Minnesota Republican Mark Kennedy also noted his shifting positions on privatization, with one release opening:
"GOP Rep. Mark R. Kennedy (MN-06) should be happy. After all, the Bush Administration has begun a campaign to privatize Social Security and cut benefits just as Kennedy asked President Bush's Social Security Commission to recommend a few years ago.
"But instead of taking credit for his role in creating the Bush Administration's privatization scheme, Kennedy is trying to hide his past support for it."
Why are you running GOP?
Whatever happened to the “Crisis” ?
” "The campaign will use Bush's campaign-honed techniques of mass repetition, never deviating from the script and using the politics of fear to build support -- contending that a Social Security financial crisis is imminent when even Republican figures show it is decades away."
-- Washington Post, January 14, 2005
”
Indeed, in the opening weeks of President Bush's offensive, the word "crisis" seemed omnipresent.(
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A62934-2005Jan10.html) And he made clear that this was the first stage (
http://www.theledger.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20041221/ZNYT03/412210424) in his propaganda campaign.
But even by the time that was printed in the Post, something odd had happened. On January 11th, during yet another "major" address on privatization, the word all but disappeared (
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A3485-2005Jan12.html):
"In his talk, Bush only used the word crisis once, when mocking his critics. Problem, he used 29 times... Even Chuck Blahous, a top White House economic adviser answering questions on 'Ask the White House' yesterday avoided the crisis word like the plague."
And Democratic Whip Hoyer did not let up in his statement yesterday:
"But today, President Bush did himself more harm than good by again claiming that Social Security is in 'crisis,' when the numbers show that he is exaggerating the extent of the challenge. The President's fear-mongering is counter-productive, and only leads many Democrats and seniors to question his willingness to engage in an honest dialogue based on the reality that exists not the reality the White House wants to create. This rhetoric makes it appear that the motive is to achieve the long-time Republican goal of dismantling the program rather than protect it for future generations."
Maybe it would have been worth avoiding that one usage, even if it meant he didn't get to "mock his critics."
Stand with us.
So make no mistake, the fight to save Social Security is winnable, and we are already winning. However, the Republicans and their Wall Street donors are now bringing out their big guns, promising to spend $100 million or more on this battle, and President Bush has accelerated his plan to abandon the facts of the matter altogether. They have even gone so far, despite ongoing scandals involving illegal covert propaganda, as to demand that the Social Security administration itself peddle their dishonest claims. We will need you with us to stand up to this barrage of funny money and deception and get our message out to the hard working Americans who the Republicans have picked out as their marks. We humbly ask you to donate what you can afford towards our campaign to protect Social Security. A victory here will help put us on the road to capturing the House in 2006, in what will be our last chance to bring the Bush-DeLay steamroller to a screeching halt.
(Fund Raising Solicitation Removed)
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
