"Saving" Social Security

With saviours like this, who needs enemies?

WASHINGTON - The success of President Bush’s push to remake Social Security depends on convincing the public that the system is “heading for an iceberg,” according to a White House strategy note that makes the case for cutting benefits promised for the future.

Calling the effort “one of the most important conservative undertakings of modern times,” Peter Wehner, the deputy to White House political director Karl Rove, says in the e-mail message that a battle over Social Security is winnable for the first time in six decades and could transform the political landscape.

The White House confirmed the authenticity of the e-mail but did not have an immediate comment. ...

“We have it within our grasp to move away from dependency on government and toward giving greater power and responsibility to individuals,” said Wehner, the director of White House Strategic Initiatives. He called the Democratic Party the “party of obstruction and opposition. It is the Party of the Past.”

But the administration must “establish an important premise: the current system is heading toward an iceberg,” Wehner’s e-mail said.

So, just to be clear, the "first time in six decades" makes it clear that this is about destroying Social Security, not saving it. They are trying to repeal the New Deal. They haven't been waiting six decades for the opportunity to save this program. "Move away from dependency on government" means eliminate a program that the majority of the American people have supported for decades, and continue to support, whereby we, as a society, agree that we will provide a means to keep seniors, disabled people and orphans from becoming destitute. "Responsibility to individuals" means that, should anyone become disabled, or have their pension plan or 401(k) vanish due to corporate mismanagement (Enron, anyone?), that it's their own damn fault, and that their starvation is best for America. "Establish an important premise" means that, since they recognize that their ideological position (to eliminate Social Security) is NOT shared by the majority of the electorate, they must lie to us so that the American people's support for this program can be used to destroy it.

Meanwhile, if you are still wondering about whether the President's plan makes any sense at all (in as much as there is a "plan", since they keep avoiding suggesting actual details that could be criticized), check out this posting on the Washington Monthly's Political Animal blog by Kevin Drum. It presents some charts showing the Congressional Budget Office analysis of the results of doing nothing versus implementing a plan like the President's. (Guess what? Doing absolutely nothing is better. And it doesn't require trillions in borrowing for transition costs. But you knew that, right?)

Update: Josh Marshall posts the text of the whole email. It's scary. Wehner is a true believer, for sure. The full text makes clear that a key part of their proposal, which elsewhere is being downplayed and even denied, is cutting benefits. He also seems to believe that people are currently prevented somehow from owning a piece of their retirement, so that we need "reform" to provide the confidence such a thing would bring. Weird.

This email is like a trip to Looking-Glass Land.