Moe Lane

Let me refresh your memory.

The above video (via The Lonely Conservative) is from that infamous moment during George W Bush’s 2006 State of the Union address where Democrats enthusiastically applauded their successful torpedoing of Social Security reform.  Bush at the time, as you no doubt recall, advocated a partial privatization of the system that would have allowed individuals the option of creating investment accounts; the Democrats, as you also no doubt recall, fought this idea tooth and nail because it would have reduced the amount of Social Security ‘trust fund’ money that could be raided for social engineering.  And the Democrats succeeded: no reform, nothing was done, and the can was kicked once again down the road.

We are now “down the road.” (more…)

Verum Serum is perfectly correct: we either have a cash reserve of 3.2 trillion in our Social Security lockbox, or we do not (we do not, by the way).  If we did (we do not), then the President’s bluff of not issuing Social Security checks would have been even more stupid than it first seemed.  Since we do not have that reserve, it is irresponsible for the Democrats to pretend that the money is there – but that’s actually an incidental point; the true point is that Jan Schakowsky can’t have it both ways.  She has to pick one narrative, and live with the consequences.

But it’s fun to watch her try to squirm off of the hook.  Yeah, call your hosts ignorant some more there, Jan.  That’ll shut them up… no, no it did not.

Moe Lane

*That is me being nice.

OK, that’s not the title of the piece.  The title of the piece is “Social Security reform splits White House political, economic teams.”  I’m merely providing a translation from the original Beltwayese.

The problem is this: somebody told The Hill that Obama’s advisers are broken up into two groups.  The first group consists of the financial people, who are patiently explaining that Social Security is taking in less money than it puts out, that the supposed Social Security trust fund is actually a bunch of IOUs, that it’s a bad idea to borrow money to pay our Social Security obligations, and that it’s absolutely vital that Social Security be put on a sounder fiscal basis immediately.  The second group consists of the political people, who are curtly saying things like “Touch Social Security and you lose the 2012 election.”

The political people will win the internal debate.

And there’s really nothing else to say about that, is there?

Moe Lane (crosspost)

(H/T Hot Air Headlines)

Eleanor Clift, in the process of depserately trying to encourage some strange alternate-world version of the President – one who actually believes in compromise and bipartisanship, and who might be willing to do some actual, unglamorous work - makes this howler:

Republicans stood together against Social Security and Medicare, and when those programs proved popular, opposing them left a residue of distrust for the GOP.

Don Surber snickers at that:

Not so. Jonah Goldberg reported: “The Social Security Act was passed in the House on April 19, 1935 by a vote of 372 yeas, 33 nays, 2 present, and 25 not voting. Eighty-one Republicans voted for it, fifteen against. Fifteen Democrats also voted against it. That’s over 80% Republican support.”

Also, Republicans backed Medicare in 1965, which was co-written by Republican Congressman John Byrnes. It passed 70-24 in the Senate and 307-116 in the House.

Goldberg link here, which was incidentally a correction of yet another liberal columnist getting the details wrong. Doesn’t anybody on the Left punditocracy do basic research anymore?

Moe Lane

PS: I’d discuss the central thesis of Ms. Clift’s article itself, except that I generally try to avoid theological disputes in religions that I don’t follow.

Crossposted to RedState.

“Where have you gone, Franklin Delano?  A nation starts this Ponzi scheme to rue*…”

[UPDATE]: Welcome, Instapundit readers. My reaction (and attempt to cash in somehow) on the Crowder Victory Dance here.

49% want the chance to opt out, 37% don’t.  This was the sentence that jumped out at me:

A majority of voters under 50 say workers should be allowed to opt out. A plurality of those over 50 disagree.

Speaking as a voter under 50, let me say that both the under-50 and the over-50 positions make perfect sense.  I’ve been putting money into Social Security for a quarter-century – and I don’t expect to see a penny of it, a quarter-century from now.  Somebody retiring fifteen years from now? …maybe.  Enough to roll the bones, at least.  For myself, I’m tired of tossing good money after bad. (more…)