Rhetorical Review

The Social Security debate continues.

Apparently Baghdad Bob has been put in charge of the Republican public stance on the privatization effort. You remember Mohammed Saeed al-Saha, Saddam's spokesman, who famously said, as American troops were closing on his location,

The Americans are not there. They're not in Baghdad. There are no troops there. Never. They're not at all.

The Washington Post quotes Karl Rove:

White House deputy chief of staff Karl Rove said in an interview aired last night on CNBC's "Kudlow & Company" that Bush is "winning the debate" on Social Security.

Apparently not willing to make Mr. Rove look too bad, the Post follows with the relatively mild

A new CBS News-New York Times poll found that most Americans are uneasy about Bush's plans for Social Security and believe personal accounts are not a good idea.

which ignores the several other polls that show Bush is losing the debate. For instance, the Pew numbers that show that the more people know about Bush's plan, the less they like it.

President George W. Bush is losing ground with the public in his efforts to build support for private retirement accounts in Social Security. Despite Bush's intensive campaign to promote the idea, the percentage of Americans who say they favor private accounts has tumbled to 46% in Pew's latest nationwide survey, down from 54% in December and 58% in September. Support has declined as the public has become increasingly aware of the president's plan. More than four-in-ten (43%) say they have heard a lot about the proposal, nearly double the number who said that in December (23%).

But at least Karl isn't alone out there:

"I think the reports on this going badly are highly exaggerated," House Majority Whip Roy Blunt (R-Mo.) said.

Meanwhile, Senate Democrats are calling the President's bluff about bipartisanship, and Secretary Snow's suggestion that Bush could live with "personal accounts" that weren't carved out of Social Security. They've sent a letter, signed by almost every Democrat in the Senate.

While Secretary Snow's suggestion was initially encouraging, subsequent reports indicate that you remain committed to your privatization plan and his public comments were little more than a tactical maneuver. According to a story in today's Washington Post, "White House officials are privately telling Republicans that Bush is opposed to the idea [of accounts outside of Social Security], but does not want to say so because it would appear he is not willing to compromise."

Given the conflicting and ambiguous reports on such a critical issue, we urge you to publicly and unambiguously announce that you reject privatized accounts funded with Social Security dollars or otherwise linked to the provision of guaranteed Social Security benefits. Such a statement would eliminate a serious obstacle to the kind of bipartisan process that Democrats are seeking to deal with Social Security's long-term challenges and to improve the retirement security of all Americans.

Over at Salon.com, Sidney Blumenthal brings some historical perspective to the debate. After reviewing Frank Luntz's current communication strategy (essentially frighten, lie, and if all else fails bring in 9/11, just like the campaign) he delivers these historical notes:

Social Security is in crisis, Social Security will not be there, only the Republicans can save the system by privatizing it -- all these themes were advanced in the 1936 Republican Party platform. This yellowing document reads like the most recent Republican declaration:

"Society has an obligation to promote the security of the people, by affording some measure of protection against involuntary unemployment and dependency in old age. The New Deal policies, while purporting to provide social security, have, in fact, endangered it." The 1936 Republican platform claims that the federal government will not be able to meet its financial obligations to pay retirement benefits and two-thirds of the people will be deprived. It also insists that "the fund will contain nothing but the government's promise to pay" and is "unworkable."

In 1964, Barry Goldwater was also talking about the crisis in Social Security:

"It promises more benefits to more people than the incomes collected will provide," he said.

Hmm, the trust fund contains nothing, and more benefits going out than money coming in. Where have I heard that?

"Some in our country think that Social Security is a trust fund -- in other words, there’s a pile of money being accumulated. That’s just simply not true. The money -- payroll taxes going into the Social Security are spent. They’re spent on benefits and they’re spent on government programs. There is no trust." President Bush, 2/12/05

“In the year 2018, for the first time ever, Social Security will pay out more in benefits than the government collects in payroll taxes.” [President Bush, 12/11/04]

Oh. Yeah.