State of the Union
I'd really like to give you all a comprehensive and insightful analysis of last night's State of the Union speech, but my mind is overwhelmed by, as the Shrill Blog would say, the sheer "mendacity, malevolence, incompetence, or simple disconnection from reality" of George W. Bush. And I left part-way through the speech to go do something else!
My head is a-swirl with conflicting impulses about where to start. How about that enormous, contempuous smirk on Cheney's face as W. was trotting out his Social Security nonsense. Would it kill him to at least keep a straight face as they were telling us how they were going to screw us? To be charitable, maybe he was just remembering how he'd gotten W. to mention asbestos lawsuits, which mainly threaten a certain conglomerate which bought an asbestos company when a certain VP (still getting checks) was CEO? Whatever.
How about that moment when the sheer mendacity forced even the milquetoast Democrats to speak up, when he declared that Social Security would be "exhausted and bankrupt" in 2042? Or "Your money will grow, over time, at a greater rate than anything the current system can deliver." Not 'it may grow', not 'it could, if wisely invested, grow,' but it will grow, at a greater rate than anything the current system can deliver. Paying you back in checks covered in pretty twinkling fairy dust, I hope. (Will it bring me a pony, too?)
Or "the money in the account is yours, and the government can never take it away," though, in fact, you'll only be allowed to put it into one of several government plans (to "make sure the money can only go into a conservative mix of bonds and stock funds" and "make sure that your earnings are not eaten up by hidden Wall Street fees"), and, at the far end, you'll actually only get whatever is excess over what you hypothetically would have gotten, if you'd stayed in the old system, and you may be forced to buy an annuity from the government that could not be passed to your heirs, should you die early, to "make sure a personal account cannot be emptied out all at once, but rather paid out over time, as an addition to traditional Social Security benefits."
My brain nearly imploded by trying to fold its conceptual space such that one's "personal" account could, while being invested in a conservative mix, yield a guaranteed greater rate of return, but that was probably because it already destabilized by trying to understand what was really so different, and where the "ownership" was, in a plan where my tax dollars get invested in a government-chosen portfolio and then paid back to me over time. And why, if the government was going to create these "conservative mixes" that would have a better rate of return than the current system, it couldn't just put the current Social Security money there, and not bother with all of this "personal account" overhead.
That near-implosion must explain how I missed the part where he explained just how any of it would somehow solve a financial shortfall in the system, which I knew doesn't exist in the first place. But hey, at least he's willing to discuss all the possible options for fixing the system! (Uh, except for the obvious one of lifting the cap on contributions, so that rich folks would have to start paying Social Security tax on all their income, just like poor folks do. But let's just slip past that.)
On the positive side, it was nice to see him expressing concern about making sure no one is wrongfully convicted, and that capital defendants get competent lawyers. It shows he's learned something since he was Governor of Texas, when such details didn't seem to bother him during clemency reviews.
And who wouldn't want to celebrate that there is higher home ownership than ever, (just as there is a greater US population than ever)! And we are all very happy that Iraqis participated in the elections (that the UN arranged after the pressure from Sistani, who was unwilling to let the US postpone them or ignore them completely after installing Alawi, whom they had to choose because not even toadies were willing to swallow the administration's first choice of Chalabi)! Wasn't it inspiring to see all those Republican Congressmen (who had almost nothing to do with it) holding up ink-stained fingers to bask in the heroism of those who actually had to risk bullets and bombs to vote?
If I was a young person, I'm sure it would mean a lot to me that "we will make it easier for Americans to afford a college education by increasing the size of Pell Grants," and I might not even complain that the President's proposal is to increase them $100, still way below what he promised back in 2000. And if I were younger, more optimistic, and less jaded, I wouldn't even wonder how he was going to do that, and train lawyers, and fund AIDS programs for African-Americans, and develop hydrogen cars and so forth, while he was holding "the growth of discretionary spending below inflation." If I were younger, it would probably make sense to me that he's says he's serious on cutting the deficit, but he's planning on making the tax cuts that caused it permanent.
Perhaps I should just relax. The President is, according to many, a charming fellow. And, if I take a second look, I can see where he was exhibiting a real dry wit, and telling a few obviously "tall tales", in the true spirit of Texas story-tellers. Like that one about how "our society has changed in ways the founders of Social Security could not have foreseen. In today's world, people are living longer and therefore drawing benefits longer?" In the light of day, that does raise a chuckle, I have to admit. I'm sure his tongue was in-cheek, since he must know we've read that New York Times story about the history of Social Security, and how the original crafters predicted the increases in longetivity, sixty years out, to within a few decimal points of spot-on. Ha! Good one! What a jokester, this President.
Well, as I say, I had to leave during the speech, so I completely missed the tawdry exploitation of parental grief for partisan ex-post-facto justification of illegal war. Apparently, it was a moving moment. And I also was forced to miss W's closing words, in which he again quoted from Franklin Roosevelt, even as he works to dismantle FDR's achievements. (You did all see that Roosevelt's grandson had complained about W's inaugural invocation of FDR, right?)
Thankfully, the accurately-named Rude Pundit is there to fill me in, as part of his mature-audiences-only diatribe/analysis. The Rude One went to the trouble of linking us to FDR's speech, so we could see the bits W managed to miss.
For example, the first two paragraphs:
My head is a-swirl with conflicting impulses about where to start. How about that enormous, contempuous smirk on Cheney's face as W. was trotting out his Social Security nonsense. Would it kill him to at least keep a straight face as they were telling us how they were going to screw us? To be charitable, maybe he was just remembering how he'd gotten W. to mention asbestos lawsuits, which mainly threaten a certain conglomerate which bought an asbestos company when a certain VP (still getting checks) was CEO? Whatever.
How about that moment when the sheer mendacity forced even the milquetoast Democrats to speak up, when he declared that Social Security would be "exhausted and bankrupt" in 2042? Or "Your money will grow, over time, at a greater rate than anything the current system can deliver." Not 'it may grow', not 'it could, if wisely invested, grow,' but it will grow, at a greater rate than anything the current system can deliver. Paying you back in checks covered in pretty twinkling fairy dust, I hope. (Will it bring me a pony, too?)
Or "the money in the account is yours, and the government can never take it away," though, in fact, you'll only be allowed to put it into one of several government plans (to "make sure the money can only go into a conservative mix of bonds and stock funds" and "make sure that your earnings are not eaten up by hidden Wall Street fees"), and, at the far end, you'll actually only get whatever is excess over what you hypothetically would have gotten, if you'd stayed in the old system, and you may be forced to buy an annuity from the government that could not be passed to your heirs, should you die early, to "make sure a personal account cannot be emptied out all at once, but rather paid out over time, as an addition to traditional Social Security benefits."
My brain nearly imploded by trying to fold its conceptual space such that one's "personal" account could, while being invested in a conservative mix, yield a guaranteed greater rate of return, but that was probably because it already destabilized by trying to understand what was really so different, and where the "ownership" was, in a plan where my tax dollars get invested in a government-chosen portfolio and then paid back to me over time. And why, if the government was going to create these "conservative mixes" that would have a better rate of return than the current system, it couldn't just put the current Social Security money there, and not bother with all of this "personal account" overhead.
That near-implosion must explain how I missed the part where he explained just how any of it would somehow solve a financial shortfall in the system, which I knew doesn't exist in the first place. But hey, at least he's willing to discuss all the possible options for fixing the system! (Uh, except for the obvious one of lifting the cap on contributions, so that rich folks would have to start paying Social Security tax on all their income, just like poor folks do. But let's just slip past that.)
On the positive side, it was nice to see him expressing concern about making sure no one is wrongfully convicted, and that capital defendants get competent lawyers. It shows he's learned something since he was Governor of Texas, when such details didn't seem to bother him during clemency reviews.
And who wouldn't want to celebrate that there is higher home ownership than ever, (just as there is a greater US population than ever)! And we are all very happy that Iraqis participated in the elections (that the UN arranged after the pressure from Sistani, who was unwilling to let the US postpone them or ignore them completely after installing Alawi, whom they had to choose because not even toadies were willing to swallow the administration's first choice of Chalabi)! Wasn't it inspiring to see all those Republican Congressmen (who had almost nothing to do with it) holding up ink-stained fingers to bask in the heroism of those who actually had to risk bullets and bombs to vote?
If I was a young person, I'm sure it would mean a lot to me that "we will make it easier for Americans to afford a college education by increasing the size of Pell Grants," and I might not even complain that the President's proposal is to increase them $100, still way below what he promised back in 2000. And if I were younger, more optimistic, and less jaded, I wouldn't even wonder how he was going to do that, and train lawyers, and fund AIDS programs for African-Americans, and develop hydrogen cars and so forth, while he was holding "the growth of discretionary spending below inflation." If I were younger, it would probably make sense to me that he's says he's serious on cutting the deficit, but he's planning on making the tax cuts that caused it permanent.
Perhaps I should just relax. The President is, according to many, a charming fellow. And, if I take a second look, I can see where he was exhibiting a real dry wit, and telling a few obviously "tall tales", in the true spirit of Texas story-tellers. Like that one about how "our society has changed in ways the founders of Social Security could not have foreseen. In today's world, people are living longer and therefore drawing benefits longer?" In the light of day, that does raise a chuckle, I have to admit. I'm sure his tongue was in-cheek, since he must know we've read that New York Times story about the history of Social Security, and how the original crafters predicted the increases in longetivity, sixty years out, to within a few decimal points of spot-on. Ha! Good one! What a jokester, this President.
Well, as I say, I had to leave during the speech, so I completely missed the tawdry exploitation of parental grief for partisan ex-post-facto justification of illegal war. Apparently, it was a moving moment. And I also was forced to miss W's closing words, in which he again quoted from Franklin Roosevelt, even as he works to dismantle FDR's achievements. (You did all see that Roosevelt's grandson had complained about W's inaugural invocation of FDR, right?)
Thankfully, the accurately-named Rude Pundit is there to fill me in, as part of his mature-audiences-only diatribe/analysis. The Rude One went to the trouble of linking us to FDR's speech, so we could see the bits W managed to miss.
For example, the first two paragraphs:
Our covenant with ourselves did not stop there. Instinctively we recognized a deeper need-the need to find through government the instrument of our united purpose to solve for the individual the ever-rising problems of a complex civilization. Repeated attempts at their solution without the aid of government had left us baffled and bewildered. For, without that aid, we had been unable to create those moral controls over the services of science which are necessary to make science a useful servant instead of a ruthless master of mankind. To do this we knew that we must find practical controls over blind economic forces and blindly selfish men.See, to me, that bit about "find practical controls over blind economic forces and blindly selfish men," has quite a ring to it, as does "we refused to leave the problems of our common welfare to be solved by winds of chance and the hurricanes of disaster." Or how about this line, just a few beyond the one W. referred to:
We of the Republic sensed the truth that democratic government has innate capacity to protect its people against disasters once considered inevitable, to solve problems once considered unsolvable. We would not admit that we could not find a way to master economic epidemics just as, after centuries of fatalistic suffering, we had found a way to master epidemics of disease. We refused to leave the problems of our common welfare to be solved by the winds of chance and the hurricanes of disaster.
Dulled conscience, irresponsibility, and ruthless self-interest already reappear. Such symptoms of prosperity may become portents of disaster!Maybe W should sit down with his speech writers. They seem to be leaving the best lines on the floor. I guess, once you've included all the fairy stories and tall tales, there just isn't much room left.
posted by Paul at 9:33 AM |
|
email this
