Bush Launches Preemptive Strike On Social Security

[academic punk]

ST. LOUIS, MO—At an appearance at the St. Louis Convention Center Sunday evening, President Bush declared the "grave and pressing need" for a preemptive attack on the Social Security program.

"My fellow citizens, at this hour, brave administration and congressional forces are in the early stages of an all-out attack on Social Security, with the ultimate goal of bringing down the oppressive legacy of the New Deal, and big government itself," Bush said. "Through bold and decisive action, we will liberate our grandparents and our grandchildren from the threats of the system established by Franklin D. Roosevelt to provide retirement compensation for America's workers."

According to the Social Security and Medicare Boards of Trustees, if Social Security revenue and payouts remain unchanged, the nation's largest entitlement program will be unable to pay full benefits in 2041.

"The Social Security system is a dangerous, financially unsustainable program," Bush said. "If we allow it to continue unchecked, we will need to resort to benefit cuts, tax increases, or massive borrowing in 36 short years. I call upon the combined forces of my administration and Congress to destroy this program and the threat that it presents to our way of life."

Bush defended his decision to make a preemptive attack.

"September 11 taught us that, in our unstable world, we must take bold, decisive action to protect our citizens from threats both foreign and domestic," Bush said. "We must free citizens everywhere from the threat of financial dependence on the government."

In the months leading up to Bush's declaration, he attempted to contain the Social Security program through a calculated long-range attack on its general fund.

"Up until several days ago, we attempted to negotiate with Social Security, by proposing a plan under which wage-earners would invest their withheld income in the stock market," Bush said. "These personal savings accounts would have pumped a great deal of wealth into our deflated economy, but this is not about temporarily inflating a beleaguered market. It is a battle for freedom, and it is time to take decisive action. America, we must strike Social Security."

Bush said he was reluctant to detail the specifics of his strategic plan, as he did not wish to jeopardize national security.

U.S. Army War College professor of economics Henry Reed said destroying the program will require a "broad and concerted campaign."

"The Social Security system is complex and resilient, with a network of cooperative agents across the country and an entrenched relationship with many of the nation's most desperate elements," Reed said. "Luckily, a well-funded coalition of pro-business forces has already begun striking selected targets of legislative importance in order to stop the cells that provide assistance to people on the extreme end of the age spectrum."

Reed put the current situation in historical context.

"Bush could ignore this threat, like all the presidents since Truman have done," Reed said. "By confronting this potential future crisis now, Bush will free all Americans from the treacherous safety net that currently entangles their futures."

The president closed his address by asking the public to support the massive undertaking.

"Americans young and old will be making great sacrifices for this cause," Bush said. "But there will be innumerable gains for other segments of the population, from Wall Street to Pennsylvania Avenue. As for the brave men and women of the GOP already embroiled in this fight, my prayers are with you."

Republican National Committee chairman Ken Mehlman applauded the president's campaign.

"As usual, people are criticizing the president for being too courageous, for leading too fearlessly," Mehlman said. "The bleeding hearts say you could save Social Security with less money than we're currently spending in Iraq. But that's billions and billions of dollars we don't have, people."

[academic punk]

Oh, and if you thought that was funny, this should have you in tears...

No, really, I mean it.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/ALLPOLITICS/03/29/ace.up.sleeve/index.html

NEW YORK (CNN) -- This past weekend, Republican Senator Chuck Grassley of Iowa, the influential chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, seemed to throw cold water on President Bush's hopes for major Social Security change. And recent polls have shown that the public is also cool to the idea of private accounts, arguably the central element of President Bush's Social Security plan.

But as the Social Security debate continues to unfold, do not underestimate President Bush's ability to still get his ideas enacted. Indeed, even without broad Congressional or public support, President Bush just may have an ace up his sleeve. How might he enact his private accounts idea without such support, you may ask? By executive order.

Indeed, the Constitution has long provided the president with a certain amount of unilateral power to make policy. And from George Washington to George W. Bush, that power has frequently been used when presidents have felt stymied by Congress or the courts. Among some of the notable presidential directives (a broader category of unilateral presidential power that includes executive orders, proclamations, pardons, national security directives and more) are: the Louisiana Purchase, the Emancipation Proclamation, and the Japanese Internment Camps.

When President Clinton failed to get his health care plan passed in the mid-1990s, he experimented with portions of his program via executive order.

Similarly, if President Bush ultimately fails to persuade Congress (especially centrist Senators) to back his private account plan, he may sign an executive order for a smaller version of his plan, such as allowing federal employees to experiment with a heavily regulated form of private accounts. It clearly would not be his first choice.

He'd rather enact a broad national plan, passed by Congress and signed by him. But if he cannot get Congressional passage of an overall Social Security change plan (or even just the private account portion), President Bush just may use the executive order route to ensure that a test version is put into effect.

And while President Clinton was sometimes criticized for his bold use of executive orders, he had to be at least somewhat politically cautious because of the risk that Congress or the courts might overturn him. President Bush has less risk in that regard because of Republican dominance in both arenas. And thus, he may indeed be more aggressive in using the executive order to implement private accounts if his legislative efforts fail.

By the way, if President Bush uses the tool to change Social Security, it will be the fourth major arena in which he has meaningfully advanced policy using presidential directives. Indeed, he has almost single-handedly created his multi-billion dollar faith-based initiative through executive orders, allowing churches and religious institutions access to taxpayer money for drug treatment, mentoring and other social service programs.

Second, as The New Yorker's Seymour Hersh and others have reported, presidential directives have guided much of the covert war on terrorism. Third, President Bush has significantly relaxed regulations and oversight of a number of large business industries via executive order.

Critics of executive orders note that Congress and the courts rarely overturn such directives, thereby raising the specter of unchecked, un-reviewed and potentially even presidential abuse of power. Indeed, the Supreme Court has only overturned an executive order twice and Congress a mere four times in the past century. Perhaps in part because of this leeway, Harvard political scientist William Howell estimates that since FDR, presidents have increased use of unilateral power in significant areas by a factor of four.

So this fall, whether the issue is Social Security or what to do in the nuclear standoffs with Iran and North Korea, keep your eyes on the ace up President Bush's sleeve.

[FORD]

You know how fucked things are getting in this country when you can't tell the parody articles from the "real" ones :(

[academic punk]

creepy, isn't it?

[academic punk]

I've given this some more thought and reached the conclusion that Bush should employ this strategy after all. It'll be a helluva lot easier to shock and awe my grandmother than the Iraqi black berets.

[Big Train]

Originally posted by academic punk
It'll be a helluva lot easier to shock and awe my grandmother than the Iraqi black berets.

There is a joke there, but I will walk away...:)

[bueno bob]

All this doesn't surprise me in the slightest.

I wasn't on these boards when Bush first got into office, but I knew damn well for certain right then and there that his agenda was eventually going to pull him around to social security.

Trust me, folks, it WILL NOT be there when we need it. Make other plans.

[academic punk]

Originally posted by Big Train
There is a joke there, but I will walk away...:)


OOF!! Thanks for ebing a gentleman! I walked into that one and didn't even realize it!