October 07, 2007


IMPEACH BUSH


IMPEACH CHENEY

PARADE OF THE PITIFUL

Newt Gingrich withdrew from the presidential race, but perennial loser and one issue candidate Alan Keyes stepped in. So go things in Republican land. So we have flip-floppers like Mitt Romney and John McCain and cross-dressers like Rudy Giuliani heading the field for the GOP. If the American people are dumb enough to let any of these guys into the Oval Office, we can pretty much count on endless war in Iraq, no real movement to address global climate change, and continued transfer of wealth to the rich. This column by Gail Collins is at www.nytimes.com:

Before his unhappy collision with McCain-Feingold, Newt Gingrich had apparently surveyed the field and decided there was room for one more recovering womanizer among the front-runners. Keyes must have checked out the second tier and detected the need for more unelectable right-wing candidates who are obsessed with abortion.

The front-runners, as is now well known, all ditched the Morgan State debate, even though it was the only one focusing on African-American issues, so they could spend the time raising money before the quarterly reporting deadline. The ones who came were either driven by their concern for the feelings of the black community or because they had no money to raise and getting to be on television is the whole point of their candidacy. I debate therefore I am.

“Well, the main reason I’m here is because I was invited,” said Representative Ron Paul.

BUSH'S LIES ABOUT SOCIAL SECURITY

I'm a few years shy of retirement age, but I would definitely like to retire and I would like to know that Social Security will be there when I need it. I'm a part of the Baby Boom generation, the generation that is supposedly going to place such a massive burden on "entitlement" programs like Social Security. George W. Bush and his neocon buddies would dearly love to take away Social Security. They would "privatize" it, which would mean that you and I would have to invest in stocks or other things to build our retirement fund. They market this like it's a wonderful thing, that we would have much more "return" on our "investment" than we get with Social Security. Similar experiments in places like Chile didn't turn out so well. On the flip side, Bush and company warn about dire "shortfalls" in Social Security. Under examination, those claims are big lies. This analysis by Dean Baker is at www.truthout.org:

The latest Bush story is the cry that Social Security is going bankrupt and will impose an unbearable burden on our children and grandchildren. Of course, this is not the first time President Bush has gone after Social Security. Immediately after the 2004 election, he tried to use his new political capital to privatize Social Security. As a result of a massive nationwide organizing campaign, the privatization drive soon hit a dead end.

But Bush is not through with Social Security. In an apparent effort to lay the groundwork for a future president to privatize and/or cut the program, the Treasury Department is circulating a new set of Bush stories designed to convince the public the Social Security program must be changed.

The main thrust of these Bush stories is the old massive burden line. The first point highlighted in Bush Social Security Story I is that the program faces a $13.6 trillion shortfall. That should make everyone really scared.

This number looks considerably less scary if we examine it more closely. The bulk of this projected shortfall is attributable to deficits projected for the 22nd century and beyond. The problem is, life expectancies are projected to continue to rise through time. If we never change the retirement age, then we end up supporting ever-longer retirements.