Friday, July 23, 2004
DAZED AND CONFUSED
I kind of feel sorry for the editorialists at the Des Moines Register. They are very confused people. That confusion is perhaps most readily apparent when they try to deal with the issue of Social Security. Back in December, they completely dismissed the argument that Social Security was in trouble as a “myth” and a “smear job” perpetrated by “privatizers.” Although they weren’t fully consistent even in that editorial:
With current trends in employment practices and the economy, those two other legs of the retirement stool may be more wobbly than Social Security. [Italics added]
Was that an admission that Social Security was in trouble? It sure seemed like it.
The other day they seemed to erase any doubt:
A comfortable retirement traditionally rested on three pillars - Social Security, company pensions and personal savings. People needed all three.
Today, all three are on shaky ground, or are expected to be eventually.
So I guess when it comes to reforming Social Security with personal accounts, the Register believes Social Security is not in trouble, but when they need to give all of us hayseed rubes a lecture that “Individuals need to take better advantage of the savings vehicles available to them,” then Social Security is in some trouble. Wasn’t there some guy named Orwell who wrote some book in which he explained some concept called doublethink?
But the confusion doesn’t end there. In both editorials, they upbraid us to invest more in our private pensions and 401(k)s. Yet in the editorial from last December, they disparaged privatization of Social Security, because Social Security taxes would be invested in the stock of “corporations, and we all know how trustworthy corporations have been lately in handling other people's money.” Perhaps they don’t know that private pensions and 401(k)s are invested in the stock market?
Finally, the Register has also gotten the talking points about the recent CBO report:
Social Security recently got a bit of a reprieve with new estimates that pushed the date farther into the future when the system will have to reduce benefits or raise taxes. That date is now expected to arrive in about 50 years, about the time today's youngest workers retire.
I’ve already taken a serious swipe at the left’s response to that report. I’ll just say that whether it is in 50 years or 40 years or (insert your own number here) years, all of those estimates rely on the Social Security Trust Fund, which is nothing more than a burden for future taxpayers.
. . .
WISHFUL THINKING…
The Register also takes a pretty narrow view of the Iraq invasion:
Millions of Americans believed the invasion of Iraq was to prevent future 9/11s.
Let's hope the commission's report points the way to do that from now on without further invasions.
That only makes sense if you believe that al Qaeda is the only terrorist threat we face. That is, we only went after Saddam because of his connections to al Qaeda. But al Qaeda is not the only threat we will ever face. If we remove al Qaeda without doing something about the Islamofacism that holds sway in much of the region, then another terrorist group will spring up that will threaten us. That was one purpose of invading Iraq, to establish a free society in the region that will serve as a beacon for other nations there. Unless we promote free society’s in that area of the globe, Islamofacism will be a potent force indefinitely.
The Register seems to think that we only need better intelligence, and maybe more cooperation with France and the U.N., and our problems will be solved. Sorry, but as long as there is as powerful a force as Islamofacism, intelligence will always be hit or miss.
. . .
Thursday, July 22, 2004
THE BUSH RALLY
On Tuesday I attended the rally in Cedar Rapids for President Bush. The local press gave it decent coverage, although the Des Moines Register couldn’t resist putting a less than flattering picture of the President on the front page.
The rally was held at Kirkwood Community College’s new recreation center. I had a “red ticket” which was supposed to get me into the sitting area, but by the time I arrived at 11:30, that area was already filled. Thus, standing room only for yours truly. However, the rally was not quite as packed as I expected it to be. There wasn’t much room left by the time Bush appeared, although the Southwest and Southeast corners did have a little space left over. At first I thought that it might be a small indication that Bush hasn’t quite sown up his base as a very popular president would have completely packed the place. But then it occurred to me that it was still more than three months before an election and a very hot Summer day in Iowa (and the AC in the rec center sucked, making it very uncomfortable). Overall, the crowd was able to bear the heat with good humor, and was very charged up about seeing the President. Thus, to the extent that yesterday was any indication, Bush doesn’t have much to worry about in terms of his base come November (albeit with one caveat I’ll get to later).
However, it was pretty clear that the Bush campaign is rather worried about the swing voters. Much of his talk was spent on two subjects, the War on Terrorism and the economy. What was most interesting about his talk of the War was his constant use of the word “peace.” I lost count how many times he used it. The campaign seems to be gambling on the hope that undecided voters are tired of the War and want to be told that our current efforts in Iraq will soon lead to relative calm.
The largest portion of Bush’s time was spent on the economy. This is obviously still a weakness for Bush. Near the end of the rally he spent lots of time talking to people in the audience who owned small companies that had used the money they saved from the Bush tax cuts to create jobs. I think it’s pretty obvious what message Bush is trying to send with that.
Among the other topics Bush touched on were all of his spending initiatives: the prescription drug bill, the No Child Left Behind education bill, and faith-based initiatives. With the possible exception of the last one, Bush is trying to woo undecideds by presenting an image of someone who “cares” because he spends money on kids and seniors. What I found most interesting about the rally was that the audience was quite receptive to this. I wonder to what extent the GOP base is becoming more “neo-conservative” in that they are comfortable with big government as long as it is used for conservative ends. Of course, it might just have been enthusiastic Republicans just reacting to seeing their President. Hard to say from one rally, but it does make me wonder.
Finally, I noticed that not once did he mention Social Security reform. Nor did he ever talk about how Ted Kennedy has stalled welfare reform in the Senate. Will he campaign on those issues? If he doesn’t he still risks losing he truly fiscal conservative part of his base.
In sum: To the extent that one can glean generalizations from one rally, Bush has few problems with his base at present and his base is enthusiastic. But he is still trying to find ways to appeal to the undecideds, suggesting that he still has a long way to go if he is going to be reelected.
. . .
KRUGMAN, KERRY AND HEALTH CARE
My new column at the Spectator.
. . .
Monday, July 19, 2004
AND A GREAT PHOTO
. . .
WEDDING PICTURES
Thanks to Nick Mealy for posting photos of my brother's wedding.
. . .
GREAT BUMPER STICKER
I saw this on the back of an SUV during my recent travels: “Ted Kennedy’s Car Has Killed More People Than My Gun.”
. . .
|
. . .
|
