<body><script type="text/javascript"> function setAttributeOnload(object, attribute, val) { if(window.addEventListener) { window.addEventListener('load', function(){ object[attribute] = val; }, false); } else { window.attachEvent('onload', function(){ object[attribute] = val; }); } } </script> <div id="navbar-iframe-container"></div> <script type="text/javascript" src="https://apis.google.com/js/platform.js"></script> <script type="text/javascript"> gapi.load("gapi.iframes:gapi.iframes.style.bubble", function() { if (gapi.iframes && gapi.iframes.getContext) { gapi.iframes.getContext().openChild({ url: 'https://www.blogger.com/navbar.g?targetBlogID\x3d6244729\x26blogName\x3dMr.+Alec\x26publishMode\x3dPUBLISH_MODE_BLOGSPOT\x26navbarType\x3dBLUE\x26layoutType\x3dCLASSIC\x26searchRoot\x3dhttps://mralec.blogspot.com/search\x26blogLocale\x3den\x26v\x3d2\x26homepageUrl\x3dhttp://mralec.blogspot.com/\x26vt\x3d3381137936291539633', where: document.getElementById("navbar-iframe-container"), id: "navbar-iframe" }); } }); </script>

Wednesday, March 09, 2005

So I am very happy to see Bush tanking on the Social Security bit. Not because I want Social Security saved for any particular reason, obviously some reform has to be done. But I am pleased because it finally seems Bush is realizing his limitations. This is a president who has broken all the rules (and sometimes for good, sometimes for bad) and been able to get away with a lot. Finally it seems like Bush has reached a public opinion he can not get to work into his advantage (though we should still give him sometime, I am sure Rove is working around the clock on it). But Bush is probably very afraid of looking like Clinton did with HillaryCare and rightfully so. Especially because he has firm control of Congress (he has never vetoed a bill, ever) and if Social Security failed, the blame and embarrassment would fall flatly on him. But Republican Congressmen have to be pleading Bush not to keep forcing the issue, considering how unpopular it is proving to be. This is all why we will probably see Social Security stall for awhile, become an issue again in midterm elections, and then disappear, only to be resurrected around election time.

But now that I have poked fun at the Republicans for thinking they are powerful enough to mess with Social Security (it should also be noted they are more tactful then Democrats who like a dumb dog continually embarrass themselves on issues like health care where are Republicans see a storm before it hits) something has to be done about Social Security. My feeling is that if anyone is going to have the political ability to make changes, it is going to have to be a Democrat, Clinton would have been a good type to do it (he did do some very unpopular and undemocratic economics things like NAFTA and WTO and China and Welfare Reform and Lewinsky). We'll see what ends up happening, hopefully what will end up happening is Bush will compromise with Democrats in the Congress and a bipartisan solution will occur on the level of Welfare Reform, but that is extremely unlikely.

This ended up being a very unconstructive entry. I should write an entry that gives Bush some credit soon though, because he is not all bad. I am just glad he has reached his ceiling; at least he is not immune to the third-rail.

-Mr. Alec

6 Comments:

At 5:50 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

You're damn right this post was unconstructive. What kind of reform needs to be done to Social Security?

Nothing. That's right, not a thing. The system works and will continue working. (justification has lined newspapers for the past couple months) Opening a discussion of reform is not going to bring anything good to Social Security, it will only open the door to the slashing of benefits and the raising of the payroll tax.

 
At 6:01 PM, Blogger Alec Brandon said...

Well the issue is that either taxes will have to rise or benefits will have to be reduced. You have been reading too much Krugman if you think nothing has to be done at all. But sadly if nothing is changed then it is going to become this ridiculous issue where Democrats will say, "Do nothing, save benefits, raise taxes," and Republicans will say, "Must change and if we don't Democrats will raise your taxes." People will get pissed off either way, they don't like taxes and they don't like losing benefits.

On a seperate note, Republicans are trying to reframe the issue by first talking about how to make the system more solvent, this is a good move on their part.

Lastly, on the issue of solvency, it is a sustainable system, but I share many people's worries that it will soon be such an enourmous percentage of government expenditures that it will become unsustainable. Just look at the problem much of Europe has right now, that is something we have to avoid. Simply moving the index from wages to inflation would probably solve that, but again, then it will become a deadlocked issue of who is willing to take the unpopular step, deadlocking the issue.

So, really I guess it comes down to an opportunity for Bush to really prove himself, if he can find some common ground, get a proposal done that appeases Democrats, Old People, and Republicans, I would be thrilled, as should we all. I guess my post was more aimed at disparaging how easy it seemed Bush would think fundamentally changing Social Security would be.

 
At 11:57 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

IM IN YOUR BLOG, READIN' YOUR UPDATES!

 
At 12:01 AM, Blogger Alec Brandon said...

Hmm, I have no clue who you are or why you may be so incoherent. But I am glad you are so excited about my blog, enthusiasm is good. Yeah.

-Mr. Alec

 
At 6:49 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

 
At 7:25 PM, Blogger Alec Brandon said...

If I do not know who you are and you post less then a sentence, I will delete it. New policy.

-Mr. Alec

 

Post a Comment

<< Home