Is it any surprise that Bush lacks the credibility necessary to convince the country that social security will go bankrupt in 18 or 37 years if we don't do something right now, like increase the financial problem by privatizing the system?
This is a president that took us to war on Iraq on the basis of false information, who used images of mushroom clouds and US cities destroyed by biological agents to convince us to spend money and lives deposing Saddam. This is a president unable to name one mistake he's made, who tries to convince us that the world is behind us as nations leave the 'coalition of the willing'. This is an administration that pays pundits to promote policies, sends fake news stories to media outlets to promote its programs, that somehow permits a former prostitute with no journalism credentials to attend white house press briefings for years. This is an administration that uses words to mislead - in naming proposals like the Clean Skies Initiative and the Healthy Forest Restoration Act, in defense of social security privatization by referring to the most secure investment note - a treasury bond - as an IOU or just as piece of paper, in restating the positions of opponents and in doing so completely misrepresenting them (Cheney on Kerry's use of the word 'sensitive', Bush and Cheney on Kerry's reference to a global test). The words and deeds of Bush and his administration show an appalling disregard for truth.
The majority of the public wouldn't be able to cite chapter and verse of Bush's lies and distortions. They wouldn't call Bush a liar. But I believe they do have a sense that he's a campaigning politician, that he's engaged in the art of persuasion and so may not be the most reliable source of information. Simply put, he's got a credibility problem. And it's his own damn fault. He used up the general good will that Americans have for their president by aggressively misleading the country. Sure, some folks still accept what he says as accurate. But most won't take him at his word. He doesn't have the track record that would justify doing so. It's too bad for him, but it may be the one thing that makes it possible for us to save social security. Congress won't move without public support. Bush is on the line to generate it. And he's just not that credible.
Someone ought to let Bill Clinton know how wrong he was about the impending collapse of social security. After all, Billy Boy was quite adamant and vociferous about the crisis in social security. I guess reason has fallen on its sword for the "good" of party politics. If you're for, I'm against.
Posted by: Douglas Hill | March 02, 2005 at 08:18 AM
Gee, color me surprised that the response to criticism of Bush is to raise the specter of Bill Clinton.
The projections for ss solvency have improved since Clinton was in office. Additionally, he was working off the fact that we had a giant surplus, which has been used for other purposes. Finally, I'm not arguing that there isn't a financial challenge down the road. I'm arguing that making it worse by taking money out of the system now isn't a solution, it's ideological claptrap.
Citing Clinton's past references to social security doesn't in any way address the lack of credibility Bush faces - particularly given the fact that he yells 'crisis!' as a basis for proposing a program that doesn't address the crisis he proclaims.
Posted by: Kathy | March 02, 2005 at 05:30 PM
One other note - don't presume that I stood in the privatization corner during the Clinton years. And don't dismiss my opposition as reactionary. If privatization had merit as a means of strengthening or preserving social security, if it addressed questions of solvency, if the RNC hadn't crowed that they finally had a chance to achieve their 30+ year goal of eliminating social security, if there were an actual plan on the table, I might be more open. But none of that is true. So I see no reason to change my mind or provide any support whatsoever to privatization fans. I don't believe this is an honest effort to address a real problem. I think it's an ideological goal. So I ain't buying.
Posted by: Kathy | March 02, 2005 at 05:34 PM
Your graphic announces to all that there is no problem. It does not say that there is a problem, but that you disagree with the proposed solution. At least Bush has proposed a solution, which is more than Clinton ever did, or than you are willing to do. But then, how can you propose a solution to a problem that doesn't even exist, right?
Bush's effort is not to eliminate social security - if it were, all he'd have to do is to ignore the problem, like you, and social security would die of natural causes, without anyone's help.
Posted by: Douglas Hill | March 03, 2005 at 07:21 AM
The graphic announces that there is no crisis. The sky is not falling.
Bush has not proposed a solution to his declared crisis that social security is facing bankruptcy. He's admitted that private accounts don't address any projected insolvency. When it comes to the proclaimed financial crisis he just keeps saying that "everything is on the table but benefits cuts for those 55 and over". No plan.
I've made my own suggestions here, by the way.
Bush is ignoring the financial shortfall, making it worse actually with private accounts. If he were serious about preserving it, he'd have a plan. Occassionally, someone on the right slips up and admits that phase out is the goal, like Dick Armey did.
Posted by: Kathy | March 03, 2005 at 10:55 AM