« Terri Schiavo: When Politics, Religion, and Science Collide | Main | Judge Rules In Schiavo Case »
... And Harvard Gave This Guy An M.B.A. Degree?
[Editor's note: As we move on from the Terri Schiavo story, please note that we will continue to keep a thread open below for comments and continuing developments.]
As the nominal Leader of the Free World continues to waste hundreds of thousands of the taxpayers' dollars gallivanting around the country on his Snakeoil Security tour, he bravely fields a handful of carefully pre-screened and stage-managed softball questions from small groups of so-called 'average citizens' at every stop. Given the artificial and well-rehearsed nature of these exchanges, one might expect him to at least have his stock answers down pat before he hits the stage. But no....
While addressing a handpicked audience of his supporters in Tampa, Florida, President Bush was asked by one of those 'average citizens' to explain his plan to save Social Security. As usual, his reply to the canned question (quoted here verbatim, in its entirety) was amazingly articulate in its crystalline clarity:
"Because the... all which is on the table begins to address the big cost drivers. For example, how benefits are calculate, for example, is on the table; whether or not benefits rise based upon wage increases or price increases. There's a series of parts of the formula that are being considered. And when you couple that, those different cost drivers, affecting those... changing those with personal accounts, the idea is to get what has been promised more likely to be... or closer delivered to what has been promised. Does that make any sense to you?
"It's kind of muddled. Look, there's a series of things that cause the... like, for example, benefits are calculated based upon the increase of wages, as opposed to the increase of prices. Some have suggested that we calculate... the benefits will rise based upon inflation, as opposed to wage increases. There is a reform that would help solve the red if that were put into effect. In other words, how fast benefits grow, how fast the promised benefits grow, if those... if that growth is affected, it will help on the red."
Well, I'm sure glad he cleared *that* up. I feel much better now.
Don't you?
Repost from previous thread and much more appropriate here...
Cheney Joins the Social Security Campaign
Vice President, Rep. Thomas Tout Personal Accounts as Safe Way to Bolster System
BAKERSFIELD, Calif., March 21 -- Two of Washington's most powerful politicians -- Vice President Cheney and House Ways and Means Chairman Bill Thomas (R-Calif.) -- teamed up Monday to pitch personal Social Security accounts as a safe and smart way to shore up the 70-year-old retirement program.
--snip--
As part of a stepped-up White House public relations blitz for President Bush's plan to restructure Social Security, Cheney and Thomas went after AARP and other critics who charge that Americans will be gambling with their retirement if they are allowed to invest any portion of the Social Security tax in the market. Although many Democrats agree that, historically speaking, stocks and bonds have been a wise investment for many Americans, they still oppose converting a system that guarantees a set benefit into one that relies, in part, on unpredictable market forces. AARP is running ads that say Bush's plan is tantamount to Las Vegas-style betting.
With some polls showing support for the accounts slipping, Republicans are spreading out across the country to sell the Bush plan. In Arizona, Bush teamed up with his onetime presidential rival, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), to put pressure on skeptical Democrats to drop their opposition and consider a bipartisan deal. "I say to our Democratic friends, come and sit down at the table [and] let's work together to save the safety net," McCain said at a rally. "The door is open to the White House and on the Republican side of the aisle."
Bush, who has shifted strategies in recent weeks to emphasize that his plan would not affect seniors, said, "This United States will keep our promise to people retired or near retirement."
--snip--
Speaking to 400 invited guests who asked friendly questions, Cheney and Thomas stopped short of saying personal accounts must be part of a final deal. In private, though, both have told Republicans it will be virtually impossible to get a bill through the House that does not include them, GOP aides said.
--snip--
The doom-and-gloom vision for the future of Social Security contrasted with the optimistic picture Cheney painted for private accounts. He repeatedly talked about the 10-year performance of the investment vehicles offered under the thrift savings plan for federal workers, as well as the broader market. What he did not mention was that if the market were to totally collapse, it could leave workers with a smaller benefit and no way to recoup their losses.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A54272-2005Mar21.html
******
What do do??? Well, since Congress is now officially on Spring Recess, we all need to check in our local area news for any public meetings where our representatives will be speaking about Social Security and show up to hear what is being said and to ask honest questions. And we can't forget to tell our friends and cells...
These meetings could be held anywhere -- Rotary Club meetings, senior citizen centers, high schools, colleges... In fact, this would be a great opportunity to invite our representatives to one of our cell meetings. And it's a good time to write letters to editors of local papers voicing our concerns and stating facts we've heard about this Social Security "crisis."
It's kind of muddled.....
I'll give that a standing ovation.
The thing to do, is to keep pressure on congress, and let them no that we are not going for this. If the presidunce can't be clear, which is only restating the obvious, we can respond with crystal clarity.
NO. NO. NO.
It's a two letter word, Mr. Bush. We don't do muddled.
More on Social Security...Don't be fooled by the semantics...
It's 'Private' vs. 'Personal' in Social Security Debate
By ROBIN TONER
WASHINGTON, March 21 - What's in a name? Would a personal account by any other name smell as sweet?
Apparently not, according to strategists in the two political parties.
In the Social Security debate, one of the most ferocious struggles is over language, whether President Bush is proposing to create "personal" or "private" accounts in the program, whether he is really proposing the "privatization" of Social Security.
Mr. Bush complained last week that " 'privatization' is a trick word," intended to "scare people." Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the Democratic leader, interrupted a news conference to correct a reporter who asked about "personal" accounts.
"It's 'privatization,' " Mr. Reid said, adding that "personal accounts" was "the Republican term."
Read more at NYTimes... http://tinyurl.com/6jqf5
NO. NO. NO.
It's a two letter word, Mr. Bush. We don't do muddled.
Posted by: tutterfly at March 22, 2005 09:37 AM
Hey, maybe it's time to bring back that old Republican mantra from Nancy Reagan days...
Just Say No!
For a real close-up view of muddled, you should go to whitehouse.gov, and click on the social security issue on the left column and read some of the speeches from the Preznitwit's Spam America tour.
It's like and Abbot and Costello highlights reel. One of these days I am going to sit down and do a whole list of just the Tour highlights and send them to Josh Marshall.
People see through the politics of the Schiavo case and therefore will be more skeptical of a President who demands to have a forum with rehearsed invitees to his canned Social Security dog and pony shows:
Was the political theater intentional? Well consider this, from Bumiller: "White House officials acknowledged that the final bill could have been flown to Mr. Bush in Texas, a round trip of six or seven hours that probably would have made no difference in whether Ms. Schiavo lives."
And this: "It was the first time this president had interrupted a vacation to return to Washington, although it was not the first time an emergency had intruded on Mr. Bush's stay at his ranch, as happened when violence between the Israelis and Palestinians escalated over Easter week in 2002."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A54002-2005Mar21.html?sub=AR
Spin---
I don't want people to fall for the 'aw shucks folks, I can't really explain it too well, but it's good for you' method during the bamboozapalooza tour. Because of the loyalty oath audiences on the tour, there is the 'appearance' of some kind of bandwagon,and now Darth Cheney is out there pitching too.
While I am gratified that the Dems are not weakening, the biggest job is the applying of pressure to the side of congress that is also trying to sell, sell, sell. Who are the Republicans who have shown misgivings, and who are the ones who have signed on full tilt?
Where do we apply our pressure?
The title says it all...
A Genuine Commitment to Vulnerable Requires More than Political Grandstanding
March 22, 2005
President Bush said yesterday that he intervened in the Terri Schiavo case because he believes in "defending life for all Americans, including those with disabilities." Unfortunately, the president's words don't match his policies. As the Schiavo case is being considered by the federal courts, President Bush has an opportunity to show his commitment to "defending life" by reconsidering his record on assisting the vulnerable.
Eliminating health care for the poor. President Bush and right-wing congressional leaders recently sought to significantly cut funding for Medicaid and the related State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP). Bush's 2006 budget slashes funding for the programs – which provide vital health coverage to 1 in 6 Americans and 1 in 4 children – by more than $20 billion over five years. Gov. Mike Huckabee (R-AR) said of Bush's proposed Medicaid cuts: "[P]eople need to remember that to balance the federal budget on the backs of the poorest people in the country is simply unacceptable. You don't pull feeding tubes from people. You don't pull the wheelchair out from under the child with muscular dystrophy."
Leaving the disabled on the street. President Bush's statement about the intervention in the Schiavo case implies that he is somehow a champion for the well-being of the disabled. Not quite. The president's recent budget proposes "to stop financing the construction of new housing for the mentally ill and physically handicapped," according to the New York Times. The program has existed for three decades.
Exposing children to toxic mercury. Mercury is known to directly harm the nervous systems of children causing birth defects and other maladies. Currently, 600,000 babies born in the U.S. every year may be exposed to excessive levels of mercury. Yet, the Bush administration recently issued rules which would allow some power plants to "increase [mercury] pollution, while others turn a profit selling unused pollution allowances," according to AP. The new "cap-and-trade" policy rolls back a plan created by the EPA in 2000 which "would have mandated curtailing emissions at every plant by the maximum amount possible, which proponents said could bring a 90% reduction in three years using existing technology," according to the LA Times.
Daily Talking Points is a product of the American Progress Action Fund.
BB-here's more on the mercury policy. No big surprise here-the neocon's hate science.
In its new, industry-friendly rules on mercury regulation, the EPA claimed it couldn’t regulate toxic mercury pollution aggressively because the cost to the power plant industry would far exceed the public health payoff. The health benefits from regulating mercury would only be worth about $50 million a year, they shrugged, while it would cost the industry $750 million a year to stop polluting.
It’s not true. Even worse, the EPA knew that and hid the evidence.
http://www.thinkprogress.org/
Don't let your representative sneak back to DC without hearing from you. Their local offices should still be taking messages as well as them making the rounds--behind the iron curtain that is.
Dear grassroot people. Is there anyone out there who has any ideas on how to bring down this illeagal and undemocratic administration? Every day I see the horrible and corrupt things that Bush and company are doing to thwart democracy and crush the working people of America. I listen to all the progressives comment and mostly complain about what is happening. But what I want to hear is someone with some ideas on how to impeach this illegitimate president and/or prosecute him for his crimes against the Nation and the world. I'm not a lawyer, but aren't there any legal or political minds out there with some idea of what we can do to stop this madman? I know the republicans control everything right now and that makes it more difficult. But these republicans did not accumulate all this power honestly or legally. As progressives we must come up with new ways to block their corrupt agenda and remove them from the offices they have hijacked. Drastic mesures and ideas are needed here. please write to me or blog in and let me know if you have any ideas about what CAN be done.