Defending the Rich

Michelle Malkin blogged The left side of the blogosphere has gone into full-blown spin mode regarding the effects of President Bush's Social Security indexing proposal. As I noted below, Bush's indexing plan guarantees middle- and upper-income retirees the same level of benefits they get now (after adjusting for inflation). Their benefits would not, however, grow above the rate of inflation, as is the case under the status quo.

It is that status quo that put Social Security in the bind it is in now. Congress (primarilly, but not exclusively, Democrats) continually increased benefits in an effort to buy the votes of seniors

The savings would be used to allow working people of all income levels to set aside some of their Social Security taxes into private retirement funds. Under reasonable assumptions about investment returns, those accounts could be worth hundreds of thousands of dollars 40 years from now.

And it would mean that the retirees at the time would not fear Congress cutting back what they were getting, so they would not feel they had to vote for Democrats

There was a time when liberals could be counted on to defend the interests of working class Joes. Marshall and the others are now taking the exact opposite position. They are saying, in effect, that ensuring ever-increasing benefits for well-to-do retirees is more important than promoting the financial well-being of young working people.

It is not so much that they want to protect the well-to-do, they just don't want to give an inch, and take the chance that personal accounts will be approved

Mark blogged I noted earlier how, all of a sudden, just because it's proposed by Bush, means testing has become an ugly concept to the Left after a lifelong love affair.

The left hates ANYTHING Bush does or proposes

Michelle Malkin has two posts, one focusing mostly on the MSM, the other on leftwing bloggers, showing the hypocrisy in action. One essential part of the Big Lie is relying on people's short attention span; Josh Marshall and company are not getting away with it this time, though.

That will not stop them from trying, and it will not stop the MSM from helping them

Dana blogged Last night, after the President's press conference, I made this prediction:

I predict that we will see a liberal spin against the President's proposal that will result in an increase of social security benefits to lower income and the lowering of benefits to those that are less dependent on the system. The MSM will all of a sudden "discover" what the government calls "wealthy" and cry foul.

Only because they have to oppose anything Bush says

ResurrectionSong blogged The acknowledgement that the system needs to be means tested was surprising and gratifying, but didn’t go far enough. Social Security, outside of any private accounts that the government may or may not give us, is a welfare program, and it should be treated accordingly. Means testing for a welfare program should exclude anyone who is truly wealthy; there is a principle of fairness involved that makes me uncomfortable with this since even the wealthy have been asked to pay into a “retirement program.” The truth is, though, that the system needs to be modified to reflect the reality: there is no reserve of money to pay retirement benefits and any pay-go system is in reality a welfare program meant to save the least of us from impoverishment in old age. The Donald Trumps of the world don’t need the monthly government handout that takes the form of a Social Security.

Absolutely

To move to that kind of a system, though, the government must provide private accounts--the portion of your taxes that you or you heirs are actually entitled to, that requires no means testing, and that funnels wealth from one generation to the next.

Absolutely

dostrick blogged I was cruising the entirely-too-gorgeous Michelle Malkin's blog on a regularly scheduled data run and was not particularly surprised to read that Bush's ridiculously generous compromise on Social Security is already being attacked, because it's not fair to workers that earn more. It's amazing, but not surprising. We Convervatives and/or Republicans tend to be very reasonable people and sometimes it is hard to wrap our minds around the thought processes of the unreasonable. You know who they are, the people that complain that you're clouding the issue with facts.

Don't confuse them with facts; their minds are already made up

You'll experience less stress if you just accept that at some point it stopped being all about winning with them. Mindless opposition for the sake of mindless opposition is the sum of their existance now. It doesn't matter how many facts and figures you show them, or how many numbers you crunch. They'll reject it out of hand because it just doesn't "feel" right.

They don't have any ideas of their own, so facts are meaningless. All they know is hate and opposition

It all reminds me of a cruel and abusive step-father is used to have. I was asked to describe our relationship in one sentence. I had to think for a while, them I came up with this: "If I invented the cure for every cancer, he would complain that it's a tacky color." It just doesn't matter how good or how workable or how necessary any proposal is to these sad folks, because it will always be a tacky color.

napablogger blogged Michelle Malkin nails some major liberal bloggers on their bias about Bush's Social Security plan, slamming it because it does not favor the rich--how hypocritical can you get. Plus when you look at it, they do the typical Democrat thing of calling an increase at the rate of inflation a "benefit cut". Clinton did it with Medicare when Gingrich suggested slowing the rate of increase in benefits, not even to the rate of inflation then, the Teacher's Union in California is doing it now with Schwarzneggar who gave them a whopping $3 billion increase in funding, which they are calling a cut, now Josh Marshall and co are calling Bush's plan from last night a massive cut--when in fact the lowest increases would be tied to inflation.

That is because some people are dumb enough to think it is an actual cut

Captain Scarlet blogged Three of the biggest "thinkers" on the left have to link to partisan articles about the President's speech on Social Security to prove their ignorance.

because it is easier to agree with a partisan article in the MSM

Why is it that they can't link to actual text of the speech and fisk it like normal people? Because they might have to explain comments like this:

Bush: Personal accounts are important. "Why should ownership be confined only to rich people." The Congress liked the idea so much, it set up personal accounts for themselves. Long tear on personal accounts. It appeals to me, especially the pitch that they are voluntary, and that people will have the flexibility to avoid risk