Far Too Easy

Those clever folks at the RNC are at it again, trying to change reality (and their own past) by altering their jargon. Remember during the 2004 elections when President Bush was telling everyone who would listen that he wanted to privatize Social Security? Then, one day, the Republicans figured out that "privatizing" Social Security scared people, but "personalizing" it gave people warm fuzzies. They even went so far as to claim that media outlets that continued to say that the President wanted to privatize Social Security were guilty of liberal bias, even when the President himself has said exactly that a week prior.

On the way in to the office this morning, I caught NPR, of all networks, repeating the latest RNC spin point. While reporting on the possible elimination of the filibuster in the Senate, the correspondant told us that this "is what Democrats call 'The Nuclear Option...'"

Really? That's what the Democrats call it? That's interesting, because until last week, that's what the Republicans called it, too. In fact, Trent Lott coined the expression, and it's been in heavy ciruclation among Republicans for months. It was only when the pollsters and the focus groups tapped the RNC on the shoulder and pointed out that "nuclear" isn't a word that plays well in Peoria that the Republicans changed their jargon. Now, we're told, the Democrats call it "The Nuclear Option" while Republicans call it "The Constitutional Option."

Of course, we all can probably guess the real reason why it was changed from "Nuclear" to "Constitutional." It's so the President can pronounce it correctly...

Cheney the Prophet

Prior to the war in Iraq, Dick Cheney opined that, as long as we won, no one would care why we went to war or what the cost would be.

This recent post on Republican Party Wankfest, in response to the most recent estimates of the cost of the war:

WAR COST USA OVER $300,000,000,000.00

So what?
We won.
If we'd lost, you'd have a reason to gripe.

Sigh.

Filters

Ok, so we have an administration that:

1. Creates advertisements to push an agenda disguised as news programs and fails to disclose their true nature.

2. Pays columnists and pundits to push an agenda, with neither side disclosing the arrangement.

3. Scripts press conferences.

4. Allows a fake journalist from a fake news organization spun off from a real Republican PR organization to ask fake questions at real press conferences.

5. Holds fake "town hall" meetings with pre-screened audiences, pre-screened questions, and a casting department to ensure that people of the right races and genders are in the right spots for the TV cameras to see them. These invite-only press events are paid for with tax dollars.

So, when the President talked about taking his message directly to the people and bypassing what he called the "filters" of real news, what he seems to have meant was that he wanted journalists to forego journalism and instead function as propagandists.

A free press may be neccesary for a democracy to function, but it is damned inconvenient to almost all other forms of government.

Cruel and Unusual

The United States will no longer execute juvenile offenders.

About damn time, if you ask me.

This isn't news-the Supreme Court made this decision a while back, but it still raises the hackles of the folks on the "kill the activist judges who ignore the Constitution!" side of things (thank you John Cornyn). "Where to these liberal activists get off changing the meaning of the sacred Constitution? Just because societal standards have changed, they think they can change the meaning of the law?"

Of course, it isn't really like that at all. The law is peppered with phrases that refer to societal norms. Indecency laws are a good example of this. What was considered indecent back in the day is now thought of as kind of prudish. We can debate the merits of this evolution at another time, but it's pointless to suggest that societies norms haven't changed. And, since the law refers to norm, then specific decisions made by the courts are subject to change over time. This isn't "legislating from the bench" as the Republicans would have you believe-this is how it has to be.

The concept of "cruel and unusual punishment" has changed, too. So, there's nothing terribly revolutionary about the Supreme Court deciding that executing juveniles falls into this category. In fact, the decision was long, long overdue. The very idea of certifying some individuals to stand trial as adults is an absurdity. For some reason, in no other instance can a person be considered an adult before a certain birthday, but if they commit a crime, they can suddenly become an adult so that we can punish them more harshly.

Look, I have no love for underage rapists and murderers, but this process is ridiculous. That's the reason it hasn't been applied more broadly. Can you be certified as an adult to drink in a bar before you're 21? Or to rent a car before you're 25? Or vote before you're 18? Hell, can someone accused of statutory rape get the "victim" certified as an adult ("she was a very mature 16, your honor!") and get the charges dropped?

Sheesh.

I can't believe something like this is even controversial. Seriously people.

Terri Schiavo, R.I.P.

Ok, I'll admit, I haven't followed this case as obsessively as I probably should have. It struck me as a personal, not political, situation. Guess I was wrong about that.

Anyway, my take on it is that this was essentially a medical dispute. Schiavo's family did not agree with the doctor's assessment of Terri's condition. The doctors and the husband described it as hopeless, while the family felt that there was still some hope for recovery. Apparently there was no real questions about Terri's wishes-if the doctors were correct, then she didn't want to be kept alive. If the family was correct, then that is a different matter.

The courts found universally that the doctor's opinions were convincing. While I've seen rants calling for impeachment and loose talk about activist judges, most of the sober assessments I've read, from all over the political spectrum, have concluded that the courts acted correctly in considering the law. Terri's fate, while horrifyingly sad, is understandable in this light.

I'm disappointed that the Republicans felt they needed to politicize this issue. The grandstanding on this very private issue was not entirely unexpected, but it was unseemly and stank of opportunism and hypocrisy. For strong proponents of the death penalty to use the argument that 'if there's any doubt, you should always choose life' is shameless. For Tom DeLay to have likened this issue to the investigations concerning his fundraising is beyond shameless. For the President, who seldom can be bothered to leave his ranch in Texas, to fly back to Washington to sign the Schiavo law was revolting. He didn't need to come back to D.C. to do that, but he chose to do so for the grandstanding opportunity. But the worst thing is, I don't think there was ever any intention on the Republicans' part to "win," to actually "save" Terri Schiavo.

Look, if it had come down to it, the Governor could have ordered troops into the hospital and forceably reattached the tubes. That's going a little far, of course, but by all accounts, all parties were pretty sure how the legal wrangling would turn out. Keeping Terri alive might have been, long term, the worst that could have happened for the Republicans. Imagine, 15 years down the pike, Terri still in the same condition. Ugh. But, this was a safe issue to blow up into a firestorm because there was no chance of winning, it allowed the Republicans to look like they were on the side of a helpless woman being murdered by activist judges, and it deflected attention from far more serious problems.

The Terri Schiavo case was sad. The way the GOP tried to use it for political gain was disgusting.

Land of the Freerepublic.com

Perhaps I take the Freepers too seriously, but they seem to be the cutting edge of where the Republican party is going (and that's not a compliment). Anyway, I'm sure you're aware of the George Bush "town hall meeting" tour pushing his Social Security plan/non-plan. I'm sure you're also aware that the visitors are all vetted by the local pubbie organization, and that the questioners are screen and their questions scripted. Just like you'd expect at a "town hall" meeting, right?

Anyway, at the Denver event, some folks who'd actually acquired tickets and been admitted to the venue were removed by what appeared to be Secret Service agents because their bumper stickers said "No more blood for oil." Seriously. Check out: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/3/29/113651/512

I guess the only things I find really disturbing about this is that these meetings are being billed as open discussions, and that our tax dollars are paying for them. I have no problem with privately funded PR events screening their guests, and, except for the privately funded part, that's what this is.

It's the reactions of the Freepers that I find a little scary (mind you, this is the same enclave that threatened violence in the streets if Al Gore had won the 2000 electoral vote but lost the popular vote, which, at the time, seemed possible). Here are a couple of Freeper reactions to the event in Denver:

let me guess what the bumper sticker looked like...hmm-m-m-m

DemocraticUnderground.com

...and, if so, these "citizens" if displaying such sedition should have not only been removed, but removed to join their buddies down in Gitmo!

and:

Why would anti-Bush libtards goto a Bush event unless they planned on disrupting it? Kicking out these fools was the right thing to do. They can protest outside all they want, but they shouldn't be allowed inside.

So...dissenting views should not be presented to the president? Granted, this isn't really a "town-hall" style give-and-take discussion, but...wow. Not only should dissenting views not be heard at these discussions, but anyone who holds these views ("libtards") ought to be locked up outside the country as though they are terrorists.

These people scare me. This isn't tongue in cheek. They mean it. How do you reason with people who regard you as a traitor if you don't agree with everything they believe?

That's not a rhetorical question. I really don't know, and wish I did.

Is reporting on Bush family hypocrisy redundant?

``This new information raises serious concerns and warrants immediate action,'' Governor Bush said. ``If there's any uncertainty, we should err on the side of protecting her. We're exhausting all executive options and are continuing to work with the Florida legislature to save Terri's life.''

-Florida Governor Jeb Bush on Terri Shiavo (emphasis mine)

It's not a bad maxim. Of course, the irony of this coming from a man who is for the death penalty is probably lost.

State of the State

Ok, let's do a little mythbusting on the whole Social Security debate, shall we?

Myth #1: Social Security is in a state of financial crisis.

Social Security currently runs an enormous surplus, a "trust fund", much of which has been borrowed by the government to pay for other programs. Social Security is, currently, very sound.

Myth #2: Social Security will be in a state of crisis in 2009 when the rate at which the trust fund is growing starts to decline.

This is a weird one, but I've heard it often enough that I had to include it. In 2009, Social Security will continue to run at a surplus, but not as large a surplus as in previous years. There is some concern that this will affect this general budget, since there will be less money available to borrow from the trust fund, but Social Security itself will not be affected.

Myth #3: Social Security will be in a state of crisis in 2012 when there is no more surplus and Social Security begins drawing on the trust fund.

Social Security is designed as a "pay-as-you-go" system-the money coming in and the money going out are supposed to balance. In the 80's, it became obvious that, when the baby boomers started to retire, there would be much more money going out than coming in. So, to prepare for this, they raised the Social Security taxes to create a trust fund that would balance this shortfall.

In other words, the surplus is an anomaly instituted specifically to deal with the retirement of the baby boomers. The trust fund was designed to stop growning about the time the baby boomers started retiring and be used to pay their benefits. It is extremely dishonest to refer to this process as a "crisis."

Myth #4: The trust find is an accounting fiction. It does not exist, and there is no money to pay benefits starting in 2012.

The trust fund exists in the form of treasury bonds. If the trust fund is fictional, all treasury bonds are equally fictional. Fortunately, treasury bonds are considered to be the single safest form of investment. It is also unconstitutional for the government to default on its debts. If the trust fund is a fiction, then we have much bigger problems than the continuing viability of Social Security.

Myth #5: The President and the Republicans have a plan to strengthen Social Security.

This is a myth on two levels. First, the President denies having a specific plan. This is convenient, because it allows him to dodge any criticisms of his plan. Except, of course, he's laid out ideas that sound very much like a plan and, until recently, the White House web site had a section on Social Security labelled "The President's Plan."

The other bit of misinformation is that the President's plan/non-plan would strengthen Social Security. Even the White House has admitted that the pla...er...principles or whatever we're calling it laid out by the President will do nothing to strengthen Social Security's long-term financial situation.

Myth #6: The Democrats have no plan to strengthen Social Security.

The Democrats have come forward with several plans, revolving around a mix of tax increases and benefit cuts, that would strengthen Social Security's financial outlook. Some of the plans would just be short term fixes (short term in this case being 50 years or so), some of them would be a permanent fix. No specific plan has reached the floor of Congress from either side.

Myth #7: Social Security will be bankrupt in 2052.

The trust fund will be exhausted and Social Security will only be able to pay 75-80% of the promised benefits in 2052. This is genuinely a cause of concern. Whether or not this constitutes a crisis is the key point here.

As I mentioned in the previous post, if there was no Social Security - income or outlays - in the federal budget, the entire government would be less than 70% funded by tax revenue. This figure does not include things like the cost of the war, as well as other non-war related projects that have been moved off the budgets and labelled as war-related expenses so that they do not make the budget even more embarrassing than it is.

The obvious question, then, is: "If Social Security being on 75% funded 50 years from now is a crisis, then what the hell would you call the current general budget?"

Myth #8: People would inevitably be better served by investing in the stock market than in Social Security.

The stock market has averaged higher returns than Social Security. That is an undeniable fact. It is likely, though not certain, that Americans would, as a whole, do better investing in the stock market than in Social Security.

But...there are a lot of "buts."

While the populace as a whole might do better in the stock market, many individuals unquestionably would not do better. Some of this is just a matter of timing. Some of it is luck. Some of it is investment knowlege. Remember that the current average rate of return is based on investments by people who know what they're doing, and in many cases, invest for a living. In other words, the average return we see now is the best case scenario. I'm not saying Americans are too dumb to invest their own money, but it's unlikely that the average non-professional investor will do as well as the pros.

Note, too, that the average American would be better of investing their money in the stock market than in car insurance. As a whole, the money invested in the market would exceed the amount paid in insurance claims. But the purpose of insurance isn't to make money-it's a hedge, using shared risk, against a catastrophe. Social Security is not an investment, it's insurance. It's a way of making sure that everyone has the minimum coverage in case their other retirement plans don't work out, sort of the way that everyone is required to have minimum liability coverage when they drive.