The philosophy of the stop sign

George Bush, whining about his thus-far failed second term:

President Bush has responded by dispensing his cautious calls for bipartisanship in favor of far tougher rhetoric that blames the Democrats for the stalemate [on social security privatization]. "On issue after issue, they stand for nothing except obstruction," Bush said at a GOP fundraiser Tuesday night. "And this is not leadership. It is the philosophy of the stop sign, the agenda of the roadblock."

This would be, by the way, the fundraiser where Bush hobnobbed with porn star Mary Carey.

Let's inject some reality into Bushworld, shall we? Mr. President, your party controls both houses of congress and you are unable to get legislation through? The problem is with your proposal and your strategy, not with Democrats.

Here's where Bush finds his congressional allies:

"They're frustrated, they're disappointed, and they're getting the feedback from up here that, on the one hand, we can't get Democrats' support unless we exclude personal accounts, but on the other hand, if we exclude personal accounts, we can't get Republican support," said the senior GOP aide in the Senate.

Let's face a couple of difficult facts here. Bush is proposing legislation that is palatable to neither party. If he can't find some mainstream positions soon, he'll be quacking too loudly for any of the presidential wanna-be's in the Senate to care about policy offerings.

And from the "This is why they call it the third rail" files:

White House aides have been locked in a debate over whether it would be a victory if Bush settled for a Social Security deal without private accounts. Some White House domestic policy officials have suggested that the savings that would flow from reducing future Social Security costs would go a long way toward fixing the government's long-term financial problems.

But Rove, among others, has told Republicans that it would be unwise, both from a political and policy standpoint, to reduce benefits without offering people the potential of better returns through personal accounts, aides said. "It gets no easier without private accounts," a senior White House official said.

Lindsey Graham knows that if private accounts don't happen under Bush, they won't happen at all:

A growing number of key Republicans are pessimistic. Graham said he has come to the conclusion that Democrats will not pay a political price, at least anytime soon, for killing the Bush plan without offering their own. "The idea of not having an alternative to the Bush proposal is politically acceptable, at least for the moment," he said. "So I don't see any momentum for Democrats to come forward with a proposal."

Graham's effort to find a bipartisan compromise with Democrats and GOP moderates has faltered, he said. As for private accounts, he said: "I hope it comes before [Bush] leaves office, but who knows?"

This goes back to the issue of government run private accounts being an unpopular idea to most Americans.

Meanwhile, Utah's Robert Bennett is trying to lose his next electoral battle:

Sen. Robert F. Bennett (R-Utah), a strong advocate of personal accounts, has grown so concerned he has decided to introduce, as early as next week, a bill that will not include the accounts but would reduce the scheduled benefits for all but the bottom 30 percent in terms of income. He will also offer one with the accounts, but he is focusing on winning over Democrats on a solvency-only plan. "My sense is, let's get solvency going and make the argument for personal accounts on its own merit," he said.

This concept that we can get rid of possible future benefit cuts by imposing actual benefit cuts right away is less than palatable to most Americans. The place to start is with discussions about raising the income cap on Americans who earn more than $90,000 a year, not with discussions about cutting benefits across the board for 70% of Americans.

Democrats, for once, have the right idea:

Democrats are unapologetic. Rep. Rahm Emanuel (D-Ill.), chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, said voters increasingly see Bush as the impediment to a compromise because the president has stubbornly stuck by a partial privatization proposal that has never gained broad public support. Besides, Emanuel added, after five years of pushing legislation through Congress with virtually no consultation with Democrats, White House officials can hardly complain that the Democrats are not there now.

"They never wanted our votes on a prescription-drug bill. They didn't want our votes on taxes, and now they want it on Social Security?" he said. "Go ahead. Have your party-line vote. We'll see how it turns out."

The philosophy of the stop sign? Get real, Mr. President.

Posted by shamanic at June 16, 2005 11:54 AM | TrackBack