WILLisms.com: January 2005 Archives

« December 2004 | WILLisms.com | February 2005 »

Minorities Want Social Security Reform.

Previously, WILLisms.com noted how Social Security reform would benefit minorities. Unfortunately, the elites of "the Left" are knee-jerkedly mounting powerful opposition to reform.

Andrew Roth, of SocialSecurityChoice.com, notes that Congressional Democrats opposing Social Security reform are not listening to their own base.

Senators like John Kerry, who claim that "President Bush is hyping a phony crisis" on Social Security, are woefully out-of-touch with their supporters.

Pollster John Zogby notes that "Democrats are very busy turning 48 percent of the vote into a free fall, and that's not easy to do. They are not talking to their own base, let alone to the rest of middle America."

Republican pollster Whit Ayres agrees:

"The personal accounts have enormous appeal, whether Republicans or Democrats. That's going to create some challenges for the Democrats who are standing foursquare in opposition to the president's proposal. They stand to alienate a lot of younger people who would like more control over their retirement assets."

Zogby claims,

"Democrats are missing the boat on a number of issues that can be of appeal to their own base. On Social Security reform, you are looking at younger voters, union members and minorities that find this idea popular."

The Washington Times reports:

"An Annenberg poll in December showed that 54 percent of Hispanics supported the concept of 'allowing workers to invest Social Security funds in the stock market.'
More than 51 percent of black voters, the Democrats' most loyal constituency, say they would like to privately invest as much as half of the payroll tax in individual accounts, according to Mr. Zogby."

While the liberal media establishment and the left hemisphere of the blogosphere confidently forecast that Republicans split over Social Security, that Bush has finally met his match, and even that liberals have already won the debate, this is simply not the case.

Eric Pfieffer, writing for National Review, notes, "Talk of a House GOP-White House split on Social Security are premature." He reports:

"While reform opponents enjoy their fractured-party fantasy, the president and congressional Republicans are getting down to business."

WILLisms.com will continue to follow the debate on Social Security reform. Look for the dynamic to change significantly following the President's State of the Union Address this Wednesday night.

Posted by Will Franklin · 31 January 2005 03:38 PM · Comments (0)

Toppling Kim Jong-Il.

The Times of London has an interesting piece on North Korea, titled "Chairman Kim's dissolving kingdom."

The article, by Michael Sheridan, argues that the North Korean dictator is weak, his power is in jeopardy.

Sheridan:

"We had already witnessed one sign that North Korea’s totalitarian system is dissolving, even as its leaders boast of owning nuclear weapons to deter their enemies.
'It’s just like the Berlin Wall,' Pastor Douglas Shin, a Christian activist, said by telephone from Seoul. 'The slow-motion exodus is the beginning of the end.'

In interviews for this article over many months, western policymakers, Chinese experts, North Korean exiles and human rights activists built up a picture of a tightly knit clan leadership in Pyongyang that is on the verge of collapse.

Some of those interviewed believe the 'Dear Leader', Kim Jong-il, has already lost his personal authority to a clique of generals and party cadres. Without any public announcement, governments from Tokyo to Washington are preparing for a change of regime."

Previously, WILLisms.com noted:

"One disadvantage of a free society in dealing with a dictatorial regime is that time is usually on the dictator's side. The dictator can usually just wait for elections in America before negotiating. Kim Jong-Il, through 2004, believed President Bush might be replaced by Senator Kerry, and accordingly, a strong foreign policy stance toward North Korea replaced with a weaker one.
....

With the election now decided, and President Bush's foreign policy affirmed by more than 62 million voters, a record number for an American election, North Korea has signalled it may be ready to return to the table, under Bush's 6-party terms."

The Sheridan article echoes these sentiments:

"Bush’s re-election dealt a blow to Kim, 62, who had gambled on a win by John Kerry, the Democratic candidate. Kim used a strategy of divide and delay to drag out nuclear talks with the United States, China, Russia, Japan and South Korea through 2004.
Kim lost his bet and now faces four more years of Bush, who says that he 'loathes' the North Korean leader and has vowed to strip him of atomic weapons."

The CIA was surprised by the swift fall of the Soviet Union; North Korea, too, could surprise experts with a sudden regime change, but this remains unlikely due to the intense and ubiquitous brainwashing campaign Kim Jong-Il's regime employs.

Posted by Will Franklin · 31 January 2005 02:59 PM · Comments (0)

Birmingham Rising

Birmingham, Alabama, at the middle of the 20th century, was among the most segregated cities in the country. It was also a primary battlefield in the American Civil Rights struggle. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. penned perhaps his most famous correspondence, while sitting in a Birmingham jail for civil disobedience:

"I am in Birmingham because injustice is here. Just as the eighth century prophets left their little villages and carried their "thus saith the Lord" far beyond the boundaries of their home towns; and just as the Apostle Paul left his little village of Tarsus and carried the gospel of Jesus Christ to practically every hamlet and city of the Graeco-Roman world, I too am compelled to carry the gospel of freedom beyond my particular home town. Like Paul, I must constantly respond to the Macedonian call for aid."

Scott Johnson, of Power Line, writing in The Weekly Standard, asserts that Dr. Condoleezza Rice's confirmation as U.S. Secretary of State "closed a loop, even if no one seemed to notice." As Johnson points out, Dr. Rice was 8-years-old at the time Dr. King wrote the Letter from a Birmingham Jail.

Condoleezza Rice faced adversity, growing up in a place of great intimidation, where everyone and everything was stacked against her, just because she happened to be born black.

Johnson writes,

"On September 15, 1963, Birmingham's Sixteenth Street Baptist Church was holding its annual Youth Day when a bomb exploded in the basement and killed four girls who had slipped out of Bible class early to lead the adult services later that morning. Among the four dead was Denise McNair. Had she lived, Denise McNair would be 53 today."

Denise McNair was a friend of Dr. Rice. Of the bombing, Rice noted recently:

"The crime was calculated, not random. It was meant to suck the hope out of young lives, bury their aspirations, and ensure that old fears would be propelled forward into the next generation.
....those fears were not propelled forward. Those terrorists failed."

Imagine little Condi Rice, not a decade old, being exposed to that kind of evil, that kind of hatred, that kind of horror. Dr. Rice's personal story is inspirational enough, but what she represents is even more profound. Dr. Rice is a symbol of how far America has come; she is the embodiment of Martin Luther King, Jr.'s dream that one day little girls like Condi Rice would be judged not by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.

Johnson:

"The bombing of the Sixteenth Street Baptist Church had been the handiwork of former members of the Ku Klux Klan--brothers under the hood to former Ku Klux Klan Grand Kleagle and current Democratic United States Senator Robert Byrd. Byrd of course opposed Rice's confirmation as Secretary of State last week. Standing shoulder to shoulder with Byrd and 11 other Democratic senators in opposing Rice's confirmation was Democratic senator Mark Dayton who is, oddly enough, the occupant of Hubert Humphrey's seat in the Senate. History takes strange turns and politics makes strange bedfellows."

But what to make of Byrd's opposition to Rice? Was it a bit of warm nostalgia for the Senator? Did it ignite latent racist feelings in his heart, the comforting feelings of his youth? Perhaps the thought of a black woman from Birmingham--- a Republican, no less! ---rising to the top, stirred up confusing passions. Perhaps Byrd's opposition to Dr. Rice, a powerful and independent woman who has rejected the notion that African-Americans must be obedient Democrats, was a kind of instinctive plantation-owner reflex.

Perhaps, feeling spurned by a small-but-growing number of upwardly-mobile black individuals like Dr. Rice, observing the loss of control over their political monopoly on minorities, anticipating the gradual-but-impending destruction of their national electoral coalition, Democrats voting against confirming Dr. Rice were merely demonstrating their overall frustration. Afterall, Dr. Rice ought to share their ideology; she ought to be a Democrat, she ought to belong to them, so they think.

Perhaps.

Or perhaps opposition to Dr. Rice by a former KKK member is just, yet again, symbolic of how America loves to forgive (and sometimes forget). Perhaps Senator Byrd and his fellow Democrats truly judged Dr. Rice for the content of her character, not seeing her as an African-American woman, but rather, just as an individual.

If this is the case, it still does not let Democrats off the hook. Dr. Rice's professional credentials are impeccable; her character is above reproach; her values and her worldview are inspirational. For those who voted against her, it calls into question their judgment; their very character must be of dubious quality. Opposition to Dr. Rice is yet another Profile in Disgrace for Democrats in recent years.

Johnson writes:

"In ascending to the first among cabinet offices Rice becomes the first cabinet officer in the line of presidential succession. Rice's ascent represents fulfillment of a 'promise' that Martin Luther King offered in the form of his 'dream' in the summer of 1963. The promise traced its roots back to the Emancipation Proclamation and, Lincoln and King both insisted, to the Declaration of Independence. In 1864 Lincoln wrote in response to prominent Democrats who urged him to rescind the Emancipation Proclamation: 'The promise, being made, must be kept.' The fulfillment of the promise represented by Rice's ascent is one in which all Americans can rightfully take pride."

Dr. Condoleezza Rice, rising to greatness, breaking through the oppressive bigotry of her youth, has become the redemption of Birmingham, indeed, the fulfillment of America.

Posted by Will Franklin · 31 January 2005 12:15 PM · Comments (2)

Tom Wolfe: Bush Doctrine Monroe Doctrine's Fourth Corollary.

Last week, WILLisms.com commented on Americanism.

Tom Wolfe, an intellectual hero of WILLisms.com and recent author of I Am Charlotte Simmons, writing in today's The New York Times, notes that Bush's brand of Americanism is the fourth corollary to the Monroe Doctrine.

Mockingly, he writes,

"Surely some bright bulb from the Council on Foreign Relations in New York or the Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs at Princeton has already remarked that President Bush's inaugural address 10 days ago is the fourth corollary to the Monroe Doctrine. No? So many savants and not one peep out of the lot of them? Really?"

For Tom Wolfe, President Bush's Second Inaugural Address is an echo reminiscent of the words of T.R., Theodore "Teddy" Roosevelt.

'The steady aim of this nation, as of all enlightened nations,' said the Echo, 'should be to strive to bring ever nearer the day when there shall prevail throughout the world the peace of justice. ...Tyrants and oppressors have many times made a wilderness and called it peace. ...The peace of tyrannous terror, the peace of craven weakness, the peace of injustice, all these should be shunned as we shun unrighteous war. ... The right of freedom and the responsibility for the exercise of that right cannot be divorced.'

While the Monroe Doctrine included only the Western hemisphere, and dealt specifically with European influence, it has been updated thrice over time. However, through its varying permutations, it has always maintained its core philosophy of Americanism. Wolfe asserts:

"By Mr. Bush's Inauguration Day, the Hemi in Hemisphere had long since vanished, leaving the Monroe Doctrine with - what? - nothing but a single sphere ... which is to say, the entire world.
For the mission - the messianic mission! - has never shrunk in the slightest ... which brings us back to the pretty preambles and the solemn rhetorical throat-clearing ... the parts always omitted from the textbooks as superfluous. 'America's vital interests and our deepest beliefs are now one,' President Bush said. He added, 'From the day of our founding, we have proclaimed that every man and woman on this earth has rights, and dignity, and matchless value, because they bear the image of the maker of heaven and earth.'

David Gelernter, the scientist and writer, argues that 'Americanism' is a fundamentally religious notion shared by an incredibly varied population from every part of the globe and every conceivable background, all of whom feel that they have arrived, as Ronald Reagan put it, at a 'shining city upon a hill.' God knows how many of them just might agree with President Bush - and Theodore Roosevelt - that it is America's destiny and duty to bring that salvation to all mankind."

Promoting liberty is not Imperial Hubris, or even anything new; it has always been America's purpose; it is what has made America the greatest force for good in the history of the world.

President Bush did not invent, but he has revived, America's purpose, after years of vacation immediately following the fall of the Soviet Union. Bush has resurrected America's mission. Today's elections in Iraq are the tangible manifestation of Americanism.

While liberals like John Kerry believe Americans should not "overhype" the election in Iraq, the bravery demonstrated by the Iraqi people is inspiring and encouraging. What a great day in the history of freedom.

Posted by Will Franklin · 30 January 2005 05:00 PM · Comments (0)

"The People Have Won"

Mohammed and Omar, Iraqis, of the blog Iraq The Model, are overjoyed at the voting taking place there today.

In their own words:

"How can I describe it!? Take my eyes and look through them my friends, you have supported the day of Iraq's freedom and today, Iraqis have proven that they're not going to disappoint their country or their friends.
Is there a bigger victory than this? I believe not."

We must all remember joyous days like these, for the insurgents surely have not given up just yet. They hate freedom, they hate democracy, and they hate modernity. Some of the insurgents want to return Saddam Hussein and/or the Ba'ath Party to power; some are Islamic fundamentalist extremists (Islamofascists); some are nihilists; some are agents of neighboring countries, whose rulers fear democracy. They all hate what Iraq is becoming, a beacon of hope for the region, a free and pluralistic society, part of the community of civilized and cooperative nations.

Iraqis turned out to vote in numbers, in the face of violence, in the face of threats, perhaps larger than typical turnout rates in America.

A WILLisms.com MEET THE PRESS Moment, With John Kerry

John Forbes Kerry appeared with Tim Russert this morning on NBC's MEET THE PRESS and he mostly just rehashed his old campaign lines and continued to exaggerate, at best, his war record.

One line that always stands out as typical John Kerry is when he talks about abortion:

"I am actually personally opposed to abortion. But I don't believe that I have a right to take what is an article of faith to me and legislate it to other people. That's not how it works in America."

Why does it have to be an article of faith, opposing abortion? With all the rapid advances in knowledge regarding prenatal development based on science and medicine, why can't one base opposition to abortion upon both faith and science? It takes quite a bit of faith to ignore the emerging research on the subject.

Kerry also continued to externalize his loss, blaming it on Osama bin Laden:

"...we were rising in the polls up until the last day when the tape appeared. We flat-lined the day the tape appeared and went down on Monday."

Looking at the Real Clear Politics tracking chart of the average of polls, Kerry's version of events simply does not match reality. One could even make the case that the bin Laden tape even helped Kerry gain ground at the end of the campaign.

During John Kerry's last appearance on Meet The Press, he promised to release all of his military records, something he never did. This prompted this exchange:

"MR. RUSSERT: Many people who've been criticizing you have said: Senator, if you would just do one thing and that is sign Form 180, which would allow historians and journalists complete access to all your military records. Thus far, you have gotten the records, released them through your campaign. They say you should not be the filter. Sign Form 180 and let the historians...
SEN. KERRY: I'd be happy to put the records out. We put all the records out that I had been sent by the military. Then at the last moment, they sent some more stuff, which had some things that weren't even relevant to the record. So when we get--I'm going to sit down with them and make sure that they are clear and I am clear as to what is in the record and what isn't in the record and we'll put it out. I have no problem with that.

MR. RUSSERT: Would you sign Form 180?

SEN. KERRY: But everything, Tim...

MR. RUSSERT: Would you sign Form 180?

SEN. KERRY: Yes, I will. But everything that we put in it, Tim--everything we put in--I mean, everything that was out was a full documentation of all of the medical records, all of the fitness reports."

Not that it matters. John Kerry is a has-been. Nobody is going to hold him to his promise. But he is on record, now, for the second time, this time specifically promising to sign Form 180. If he does run for office again, he will have to live up to that promise.

On one point, however, Kerry showed a clear understanding of the 2004 race. When Russert grilled him on his leftover money at the end of the race, Kerry rambled for a moment in his typical Thurston Howell III tone of voice, before stating clearly,

"...money was not an issue in the outcome of what happened in this race."

Indeed, the Kerry campaign, Democrats, and their unofficial auxillary groups vastly outspent Bush and Republican groups. Democrats went overkill on spending at nearly every level, so each additional dollar spent would have produced miniscule, perhaps negative, marginal utility. An additional campaign commercial or two, extra flyers, extra signs, more campaign staff, it probably wouldn't have mattered anyway, as Democrats already had more than they needed, at nearly every level. They were swimming in money provided by individuals like George Soros and Peter Lewis.

Click for a larger version:

But just when he started to make some sense, Kerry made the bizarre claim that,

"Karl Rove really had six years to prepare for Election Day. We in many ways had only a few months..."

So Karl Rove was preparing for 2004 back in 1998? But the poor Democrats only had from the summer of 2004, on?

Tim Russert is normally fair, but comments like these require a stern and swift challenge. He failed to do so, here.

The nomination process for Democrats was earlier and longer than any in recent history. The entire primary season was a free anti-Bush infomercial, where, rather than attacking one another, the Democrats staged a "who can be the best Anyone-But-Bush (ABB) candidate?". Because of this, John Kerry emerged from the primaries virtually unscathed.

In the meantime, Republicans expected Howard Dean to be the nominee, so whatever preparation there was, would not have been geared toward John Kerry. Karl Rove, in no way, shape, or form, had 6 years to prepare for 2004, and Democrats had far more than a few months. Kerry's version of history does not even make any sense. Senator Kerry's comment was simply absurd, and Russert should have called him out for it.

On taxes, Kerry showed once again just how out-of-touch he is:

"MR. RUSSERT: You're saying raise taxes by rolling back the top bracket. You're raising taxes on richer Americans to pay for Social Security.
SEN. KERRY: Well, Tim, you can call it what you want. I mean, if you think rolling back to the level that we had in the 1990s, when an awful lot of our friends made an awful lot of money and people did very well in America--if you think that's raising taxes, then you can go ahead and have that definition. I think it's rolling back. I think it's rolling them back to a level of responsibility."

Raising taxes is raising taxes, period. Liberals love to talk about "rolling back tax cuts," as if the Constitution itself ordained a higher rate, and we're currently just at a temporarily lower point. Just because taxes were higher at one point in time does not mean they ought to be higher now. Kerry seems to think the former, higher rate is the reference point against which all other rates are compared. As long as liberals maintain their love for higher taxes, they will be out of power for some time to come.

This has been your MEET THE PRESS Moment, brought to you by WILLisms.com.

UPDATE:

PoliPundit is holding John Kerry to his promise.

Posted by Will Franklin · 30 January 2005 12:45 PM · Comments (0)

Sister Souljah Moment For Michael Moore, and Ted Kennedy?

Very few Americans have ever heard the rap music of Sister Souljah; in fact, Ms. Souljah's music is almost entirely inconsequential.

However, her name, now a verb (one can "Sister Souljah" someone else) is ubiquitous in the annals of modern political trivia, defined as an out-of-the-mainstream radical whose politically-damaging views are rebuked by a mainstream political figure.

In 1992, then-Presidential candidate Bill Clinton delivered an unexpected rebuke of Ms. Souljah, following Souljah's comments regarding the acceptability of black-on-white violence.

Mark Leon Goldberg, of The American Prospect, writes,

"The genius of Clinton’s rebuke of Souljah was that it was geared not to the assembled black leaders seated in front of him but to moderate whites, who needed to see that Clinton was not some patsy of narrow left-wing interest groups. It was cold, calculated, and effective."

Clinton's comments in 1992 were politically and strategically brilliant; Democrats in power today do not seem capable of such tactical smarts.

Flash forward to 2004. Michael Moore made a movie that insinuated, among other things, that President Bush stole the 2000 election, that the President and his family profited financially from 9/11, that the primary motivation for the war in Afghanistan was a desire to build a natural gas pipeline through the region, and that the President was on vacation, disengaged from leading, most of his first term.

When Moore released his movie, did leading Democrats pull the brakes? Did they say, "woah, now, this thing is over the line and does not speak for us," or did they wholeheartedly embrace the paranoid propaganda?

Democrats opted to become the party of Michael Moore, the party of conspiracy theories, the party of anger, the party of divisiveness, the party of nonsense. Tom Daschle, in 2004, was the most powerful Democrat in the country. As Senate Minority Leader, he controlled the agenda for Democrats, and stymied the Republican agenda, with the power of the Senate filibuster. He also attended the premiere of Fahrenheit 9/11, praising (and even hugging) Michael Moore afterward.

Mr. Goldberg refreshes the story of former General Clark, and his missed "Sister Souljah" opportunity:

"Shortly after Wesley Clark enthusiastically accepted Moore’s endorsement in January 2004, the two took the stage together at a New Hampshire campaign stop. During the rally, Moore leveled the charge that President Bush is a deserter based on the curious gaps in his National Guard service record. The press seized on this statement -- after all, desertion is a crime that used to be punishable by death. Clark, perhaps due to his character or his political inexperience (or both), could not bring himself to repudiate Moore."

Following Clark's failure to "Sister Souljah" Michael Moore, his campaign imploded. Whatever national security credentials General Clark possessed were eroded instantaneously. In a post-9/11 America, Americans want leaders who are credible, not soft, on national security issues. Clark apparently wagered that his experience as a General would balance any kind of association with the radical anti-war wing of his newfound party.

He was wrong. The negative effects of Michael Moore's readily-accepted endorsement were too powerful.

One would assume that Democrats learned something from 2004, that it would be time to moderate a bit, to eschew the radicals, to try to regain some credibility on defense issues. Peter Beinart's December 2004 piece, "A Fighting Faith," in The New Republic, which argued that Democrats need to rehabilitate their soft image on terrorism, set off a debate, particularly among liberal bloggers, but has thus-far failed to produce any changes.

Democrats seem to be more angry than ever, more appeasement-minded than ever, and the rhetoric of Michael Moore has continued to be championed by formerly mainstream figures within the party.

In some ways, it makes sense, the Democrats embracing Moore. He has quite a bit in common with the current de facto leader of the party, Massachusetts Senator Edward Kennedy.

Republicans will benefit from the failure of Democrats to "Sister Souljah" individuals like Michael Moore, but WILLisms.com believes putting crass partisanship before country is unacceptable, thus we urge Democrats to get a grip, and soon. Democrats, in the meantime, may need to purge more than Moore from their ranks in order to regain national security street-cred.

While electorally, the Democrats' poor choices advance the philosophy of WILLisms.com, their last-ditch effort to resurrect the the shrinking donkey is ultimately bad for America. The Democrats' inflammatory rhetoric helps Republicans at the ballot box, but does so at the expense of American clarity of purpose on the war against terror. In short, it sends the wrong message to the wrong people.

Democrats seem poised in 2005 to be even more obstructionist than ever, more combative than ever, and, unfortunately, more "Vietnam-era" than ever. Ted Kennedy sounds more shrill, more radical, and more irrational, with each passing day. The Wall Street Journal writes,

"His message is that the recent election essentially meant nothing. 'We as Democrats may be in the minority in Congress, but we speak for the majority of Americans,' declared the man who has four fewer Democratic Senate colleagues than he did before November 2.
'Iraq is George Bush's Vietnam,' he added, elaborating in another speech yesterday that 'the war in Iraq has become a war on the American occupation.' This, on the eve of an election in which millions of Iraqis will risk their lives to create a new self-governing country (see above). He also called for a precipitous American pullout that coincides with the wishes of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, among others who are assassinating Iraqi democrats.

....

The Kennedy Democrats are betting that Iraq will become such a quagmire that they can safely run against the war and prosper in 2006 on a voter backlash. But even if they're right about Iraq, it's just as possible that voters won't want to reward Democrats who sound like they're cheerleading for America to fail."

One wonders if, in 2008 (or even 2006), a Democrat running for office will have to "Sister Souljah" both Michael Moore and Ted Kennedy to gain credibility. From that point on, "Ted Kennedy" would become a verb, synonymous with "Sister Souljah."

Posted by Will Franklin · 29 January 2005 04:12 PM · Comments (2)

Liberals Thinking They've Already Won On Social Security.

Kevin Drum, writing for The Washington Monthly magazine's blog, "Political Animal," describes Social Security reform as if it were merely some kind of decoy or distraction for some other initiative, because, "it now looks pretty certain that George Bush's private account plan isn't going to fly."

Drum, one of the more influential bloggers on the liberal side of the blogosphere, believes Social Security reform is merely posturing, but he can't figure out why:

"Bush has smart people advising him, and they must realize that the odds of getting Social Security privatization passed is virtually nil. My guess is that it can't even pass the House, and there's zero chance of it getting enough votes to cut off a filibuster in the Senate. So why expend so much political capital on such a quixotic venture? There's got to be something else going on."

Oh, gee, I don't know, Kevin, maybe, did it ever occur to you that maybe, just maybe, President Bush really wants Social Security reform. Is it possible that the public actually wants reform?

Let us suppose that reform fails due to filibuster by, say, former KKK member and current West Virginia Senator Robert Byrd. Did the Democrats not learn a single thing in the 2004 South Dakota Senate race? Good grief, obstructionism was a decisive reason why South Dakotans threw out Tom Daschle, their easy ticket to federal pork, and replaced him with John Thune.

Next, as Adam Doverspike, who has been tracking public opinion on the issue, notes at SocialSecurityChoice.com,

"62-71% of the country thinks there are at least major problems with Social Security. 9% of the country thinks no changes are needed. And 62% of the country believes that either major changes or a total rebuilding is necessary."

Doverspike also points out some encouraging numbers regarding a Washington Post poll with this statement:

"Another idea to help keep the Social Security system funded would let workers put some of their Social Security savings into stocks or bonds if they wanted to. That could produce higher or lower benefits depending on how the investments perform. Would you support or oppose this stock-market option for Social Security?"

In response to the above statement, 71% of those 18-30 agreed, 75% of Republicans agreed, and even 41% of Democrats agreed. The Midwest, home of most of the battleground states where Bush campaigned extensively on personal accounts in Social Security, supported the statement 62% to 34%. College graduates supported reform 61%-38%, while those with "some college" supported reform 57%-41%. Those with a high school education or less supported reform 51%-44%, with 5% still undecided.

Overall, the public agreed with the above statement to the tune of 55%-41%.

Once again, Democrats are "misunderestimating" the President, and totally misreading the political environment to their own detriment.

One wonders if Drum's hubris on this issue is a conscious bit of overcompensation for his party's weakness, much like an athlete talking trash before a game, or if he is really that deluded. For one to think the reactionary, reform-hating Democrats have already won the Social Security debate is mind-boggling. The fight is going to be difficult, to be sure, and it is not a guaranteed win for either side, but the actual battle has not even yet begun.

Right now, the debate is still in Spring Training. Bush's State of the Union address will mark opening day. Campaign season will then begin, all over again.

WILLisms.com will follow the Social Security debate every step of the way, so stay tuned.

Posted by Will Franklin · 29 January 2005 06:30 AM · Comments (0)

Americanism versus Anti-Americanism.

Anti-Americanism seems to be a favorite pastime of Islamofascists, snooty Europeans, and even much of "the Left" in the United States. We see anti-Americanism in the news on a regular basis. Some prefer to blame American policy, rather than what America stands for, as the cause of anti-Americanism. Some prefer to believe that terrorism is a result of, and perhaps merely a mechanical reaction to, the arrogant projection of American power, rather than hatred for the core philosophy of America.

WILLisms.com understands that anti-Americanism is fundamentally a manifestation of hatred against America's values.

Abu Musab Zarqawi, lead terrorist in Iraq, proved this point in recent comments:

"We have declared a fierce war on this evil principle of democracy and those who follow this wrong ideology," Zarqawi declared in a statement. "Democracy is also based on the right to choose your religion," he said, and that is "against the rule of God."

Indeed, anti-Americanism is a concept most can grasp. It is somewhat intuitive. But what about Americanism? What is it that people are so "anti," anyway?

David Gelernter, writing in Commentary, "America's premier monthly magazine of opinion," asserts that Americanism is not merely,

"American tastes or style, or American culture— that convenient target of America-haters everywhere. Nor do I mean mere patriotic devotion; many nations command patriotic devotion from their citizens (or used to).

For Gelernter, Americanism is,

"...the set of beliefs that are thought to constitute America’s essence and to set it apart; the beliefs that make Americans positive that their nation is superior to all others— morally superior, closer to God."

Gelernter continues:

"To sum up Americanism’s creed as freedom, equality, and democracy for all is to state only half the case. The other half deals with a promised land, a chosen people, and a universal, divinely ordained mission. This part of Americanism is the American version of biblical Zionism: in short, American Zionism."

The Americanists put great faith in the idea that America is a force for good in the world and that American principles are really universal, or God-given principles. President Abraham Lincoln hoped to be a “humble instrument in the hands of the Almighty and of this, His almost chosen people.” Ronald Reagan, a conspicuous revivalist of Americanism following the American malaise under Jimmy Carter, asserted,

"America is a shining city upon a hill whose beacon light guides freedom-loving people everywhere."

Gelernter notes:

"Some agreed with Ronald Reagan and some disagreed. Some approved of him and some disapproved. Yet, to a remarkable extent, those who hated him are the ones who hate America....
On the occasion of his 'evil empire' speech, for example, the columnist Mary McGrory called Reagan’s denunciation of the Soviet Union 'a marvelous parody of a revivalist minister.' Another journalist, Colman McCarthy, wrote that Reagan had descended 'to the level of Ayatollah Khomeini' —to the level, that is, of an enemy of mankind who uses religion to do evil."

President Bush speaks often about how freedom is not merely America's gift to the world, it is God's gift to every individual in the world. The President believes that the United States "remains the hope of the oppressed, and the greatest force for good on this earth." There is no doubt George W. Bush is a believer in Americanism. This upsets anti-Americans profoundly.

On the evolution of anti-Americanism, Gelernter notes,

"In the 19th century, European elites became increasingly hostile to Christianity— which inevitably entailed hostility to America. In modern times, anti-Americanism is closely associated with anti-Christianism and anti-Semitism.
Anti-Americans are still fascinated and enraged by Americans’ bizarre tendency to believe in God."

While Europe has become increasingly secular, churches rapidly converted to bars and restaurants and shops and homes, religion in the United States remains a powerful, relevant, and positive force in society. But not all anti-Americans reside in Europe or the Middle East. Some prominent Americans, it turns out, believe in anti-Americanism, fearing, loathing, and distrusting American power, deriding those who believe that America has a divine calling to act as a force for good in the world.

"The President’s faith, said one prominent American politician in September 2004, is 'the American version of the same fundamentalist impulse that we see in Saudi Arabia, in Kashmir, and in many religions around the world.'
The speaker was former Vice President Al Gore. His comments were offensive and false. Today’s radical Islam is a religion of death, a religion that rejoices in slaughter. The radical Christianity known as Puritanism insisted on choosing life. Americanism does, too."

"Americanism is notable, of course, not merely for its spectacular ability to arouse hate.... it has also inspired remarkable feats of devotion."

Indeed, while anti-Americanism can be intense and frightening, this is only because Americanism itself is such a powerful and important force.

One lesson Democrats should have learned from the 2002 and 2004 elections is that Americans, naturally enough, prefer Americanism over anti-Americanism. This enough ought to be common sense, but apparently it isn't.

As long as Howard Dean, the current leader in the race for the chairmanship of the DNC, and Ted Kennedy, the current de facto leader of the party, continue to guide the Democrats down the path of hostility toward faith and mistrust of American power, they will have electoral problems for some time to come.

WILLisms.com has comments on a range of topics planned for the near future, including a look at the pending case before the Supreme Court dealing with interstate wine sales, a look at revolutionary icon and Communist guerilla Che Guevara, more inspection of the AARP, and a look at how Midland, Texas shaped the President's worldview and character. Stay tuned for these and many other thoughts in the coming days and weeks.

Posted by Will Franklin · 28 January 2005 01:44 PM · Comments (0)

More On AARP's Manipulative Polling

WILLisms.com recently pointed out the disingenous nature of the public opinion polling data AARP released regarding Social Security reform.

It turns out it's even worse than we imagined. According to USA Next, the AARP did more than simply exclude those under 30 for its poll:

"* The survey includes no respondents under age 30 even though voters age 18 to 29 made up 17% of the 2004 electorate.
* Those age 60+ constitute 34% of the sample, yet they were 24% of the 2004 electorate.

* 20.7% of adults receive Social Security benefits. Yet 33% of AARP’s respondents report receiving benefits. This biases results against plans to strengthen Social Security since all surveys show resistance to change among Social Security recipients.

* AARP’s sample gives Democrats a six-point advantage over Republicans (37% to 31%). However, the parties made up equal percentages of the 2004 electorate (37% to 37%).

* AARP finds a right direction/wrong track margin of 32% to 60%, far below those of other recent major surveys: 46% to 53% in January 3-5 Gallup survey; 44% to 51% in January 3-5 AP/Ipsos survey; and 40% to 54% in January 5-9 Pew survey. This indicates a sample far more Democrat than are American adults.

* A 47% to 48% margin trust the President, similar to the Democratic party’s 48% to 43%.

* AARP finds all those age 30+ holding a favorable view of Social Security. Yet other national surveys have shown those under 55 hold a decidedly unfavorable view, again raising questions about the partisan composition of AARP’s survey.

* AARP asks respondents whether they favor or oppose allowing workers to invest some of their Social Security payroll taxes in the stock market -- never mentioning other options, such as bonds, that are seen as safe and win higher support. Even with the slanted wording, a majority of those under 50 favor the idea, and even with the skewed sample composition, the idea only loses by a slim 43% to 48%.

* AARP asks respondents whether they agree 'Social Security should be protected as a guaranteed benefit, and should not be privatized.' Yet no one has proposed privatizing the Social Security system and Social Security benefits are not now 'guaranteed.'

* AARP also asks whether respondents agree 'We have a responsibility to meet our obligation to people currently on Social Security to protect their benefits.' This clearly implies to respondents that personal account proposals threaten retirees’ benefits even though the President and others have emphasized that no proposal would affect retirees or those near retirement."

WILLisms.com, again, is appalled at the underhandedness of the AARP in its polling, but as we learn more about the organization, we're not surprised.

Posted by Will Franklin · 28 January 2005 06:49 AM · Comments (0)

Christine Todd Whitman, the Republican Zell Miller?

Blogger Patrick Ruffini comments on the release of It’s My Party Too: The Battle for the Heart of the GOP and the Future of America, by former New Jersey Governor Christine Todd Whitman.

In her book, Whitman essentially argues that the Bush administration won reelection at the expense of the long-term health of the GOP. Whitman seems to reserve a particular disdain for "the architect," writing,

"The Karl Rove strategy to focus so rigorously on the narrow conservative base won the day, but we must ask at what price to governing and at what risk to the future of the party."

Ruffini notes six dimensions of how Bush's reelection stacked up against Whitman's 1997 reelection as New Jersey Governor:

1. Growth of support:

"Bush was the first Presidential candidate since 1988 to win more than 50% of the vote, smashing Ronald Reagan’s popular vote record by nearly 8 million votes, and increasing his total vote by 20% from 2000. In winning re-election, the President’s support surged among the most Democratic-leaning groups: women, Hispanics, African Americans, Jewish voters, citizens of the Northeast.
Whitman faced an unexpectedly close re-election race, receiving fewer votes than when she was first elected. She is the only Governor in modern New Jersey history never to have won more than 50% of the vote."

62+ million votes, a record number of Americans to vote for any individual in a single election, is everything Whitman needs to know about winning elections.

2. Beating expectations:

"For most of Bush’s re-election year, the majority of the press corps expected him to lose. – especially if turnout exceeded 120 million. On Election Day, 122 million Americans voted, and Bush beat expectations with a solid 3 million popular vote majority.
For most of Whitman’s re-election year, she was considered the prohibitive favorite, leading by up to 30 points. But by Election Day, she was in a dead-heat with a little known, tax-hiking mayor named Jim McGreevey, and won by less than a point."

One wonders if Whitman is "misunderestimating" Bush yet again.

3. A Party of Inclusion:

"When Bush was re-elected, his percentage of African American votes went up.
When Whitman was re-elected, her percentage of African American votes went down."

President Bush has the most diverse cabinet in American history, including several individuals with Horatio Alger-type stories. Bush expanded his numbers profoundly among Latinos and other groups traditionally not part of the Republican coalition.

4. Values:

"Bush was forceful in advancing a values agenda, and effectively put John Kerry on the defensive on abortion and gay marriage. He won handily.
Whitman enraged the Republican base by vetoing a ban on partial birth abortion, spurring serious Libertarian and Conservative candidacies that took a combined 6 percent of the vote. She barely survived."

President Bush learned a lesson from his father's 1992 candidacy: secure the base, first. Free market societies produce great change, powerful progress. When people feel the times are moving a little too rapidly for them, they want a party to gently pull the brakes, just enough to keep society from careering off the road. President Bush understands this. Furthermore, even among gays, the President's numbers did not fall off significantly from 2000 to 2004.

5. Campaign Finance:

"In 2004, Bush and Republicans were outspent by $113 million and won anyway.
In 1997, Whitman outspent McGreevey, with the DNC thinking it would be such a blowout that it stayed out of the state. Whitman barely scraped by."

Adding the hundreds of millions of dollars Democrats spent during their exhaustively drawn-out primaries, a time during which candidates rarely attacked one another but persistently, and with great unity, attacked President Bush, the President was outspent by far more than $113 million. WILLisms.com will comment on money in the 2004 race in the near future.

6. Party Building:

"Under Bush, Republicans regained control of the Senate, unheard of for an incumbent party in a midterm election. In 2004, Republicans gained four seats in the Senate and three seats in the House. Today, there are more Republicans on Capitol Hill than at any time since the 1920s.
During the Whitman era, Republicans blew a once insurmountable lead in the New Jersey legislature – making no headway in her re-election year, losing three seats in her final midterm, and finally losing control in 2001."

President Bush's coattails are the most powerful since FDR. Meanwhile, just look at Whitman's New Jersey, a state practically off the table for Republicans in statewide and federal elections.

Ruffini asks, rhetorically,

"You’ve seen the record. Now, who do you trust when it comes to growing the GOP?"

WILLisms.com understands that the Republican Party is growing, and an agenda full of reform-minded initiatives over the next few years and beyond, coupled with demographic trends, will solidify a legacy of free-market Republican dominance for possibly decades.

One wonders if Whitman wrote most of her book prior to November, expecting the President to lose, so she could swoop in and claim that she knew what direction to take the GOP. When Bush won, one wonders if Whitman had to go back and edit the book to be less embarrassing to her.

Almost assuredly, Whitman will receive glowing treatment from much of the media establishment. "Moderates" are the darlings of the news, particularly when they are critics of the Bush administration.

Posted by Will Franklin · 27 January 2005 09:09 PM · Comments (0)

Dueling e-mails on Social Security Reform

The Social Security debate is heating up.

WILLisms.com has received dueling emails on the issue.

First, the bad guys-

The AFL-CIO, "Working Families e-Activist network"-

Our friends at the AFL-CIO tell us:

"Schwab’s corporate philosophy description says its goal is to offer individual investors 'useful, ethical services at a fair price.' The most ethical service Schwab could provide for working families is to withdraw support for privatizing Social Security.
We need your help to urge Charles Schwab, which stands to gain millions from President George W. Bush’s plan to privatize Social Security, to:

* Disclose its support for groups pushing Social Security privatization.
* Disclose what it has communicated to public officials in private meetings about Social Security.
* And withdraw all support for privatizing Social Security.

Take action now. Please tell Charles Schwab: Don’t support Social Security privatization."

The email then tells us that "Social Security is America’s best-run, most successful family insurance program."

It ends, hilariously enough, like this:

"In solidarity,
Working Families e-Activist Network
Jan. 27, 2005"

The AFL-CIO becomes a caricature of itself when it sends e-mails like this. For the AFL-CIO, government reform creating positive externalities that may benefit a private interest, this time Charles Schwab, is reason enough to oppose the reform. For a corporation to benefit, according to the unions, it must assuredly be at the expense of the working class. If a business expands, even indirectly, as a result of government action, according to the unions, it must mean there is a nefarious conflict of interest. Privatization is always inimical to the goals of government collectivization. This irritates unions.

At their core, unions are anti-market, many times flirting with outright socialism. This is a good example.

The next message comes from the DNC-

In its entirety, with commentary along the way:

"Dear Republican,
George W. Bush is leading the charge when it comes to the Republicans' all-out effort to dismantle Social Security. Next Wednesday, February 2, is a critical day for him: the first State of the Union address of his second term. He's planning on using his State of the Union speech as a powerful launching pad for his Social Security scare campaign. But we've got some plans of our own."

-WILLisms.com: "Oh, yes, we've got plans. We've got plans, all right. [EVIL LAUGH]"

DNC: "Today, the Democratic National Committee is launching a 'Million Dollars in Seven Days' Social Security campaign. We'll use those funds as the seed money for the most extensive, far-reaching, and effective grassroots issues campaign America has ever seen."

-WILLisms.com: Using the 2004 election as a guide, Democrats are not very good at grassroots, particularly when they have to go up against the Bush grassroots juggernaut.

DNC: "This week we have two key tasks. First, we need your help to launch our campaign with your donation today:
https://www.democrats.org/support

Second, we'll be distributing a 'Watch Bush Mislead' fact sheet across the nation prior to the Bush's State of the Union Speech, and we'll need your help to spread the word. Keep an eye on your email in box for your copy."

-WILLisms.com: Since when do Democrats favor preemptive strikes?

DNC: "President Bush knows that on February 2, he has an opportunity to shape the 2005 debate in favor of his reckless, radical Social Security plan. We can't let him get away with it. He will use the State of the Union speech to distort the facts about the current state of Social Security and to hide the disastrous consequences of his plan to dismantle this bedrock program that has kept generations of seniors out of poverty"

-WILLisms.com: Again, Democrats are more interested in flailing wildly and defaming the President than in having a real policy discussion. They are preemptively attacking the President's State of the Union address.

DNC: "Republicans want a vote within six months to break Social Security's fundamental guarantee, partially privatize the system, and turn it from an unbreakable promise into a stock market gamble. Bush's radical plan will add a trillion dollars to the already bulging Bush deficit."

-WILLisms.com: Fear of, and contempt for, free markets, and personal ownership therein, is not a very attractive quality in a political party.

Slot machines are gambling. Poker is gambling. The stock market, over any 30-year period during the 20th century, through depressions and recessions, through wars and disasters, always went up. Owning stocks and bonds is an investment in the American economy.

Gambling is gambling.

Doing nothing to reform Social Security is gambling.

Creating personal retirement accounts is common sense.

DNC: "We're going to make sure that, before they hear the President's words on February 2, the American people know the truth. It's a critical first step in sapping the strength from Bush's effort to use the power of the Presidency to break the back of Social Security."

-WILLisms.com: The "sapping the strength" rhetoric is interesting. At least they indicate an understanding that the President is popular and effective.

DNC: "We're counting on your active participation and your strong financial support.
https://www.democrats.org/support"

-WILLisms.com: Why anyone would contribute money to such a proven loser, the DNC, is entirely mysterious. Doing the same thing again and again, but expecting different results, is supposedly a sign of insanity; contributing to the DNC after its dismal showing in 2002 and 2004 does not seem like a rational action.

DNC: "Together, we're going to stop Bush cold when he tries to mislead the American people about Social Security next week. And for anyone who votes to dismantle Social Security in 2005, we're going to stop them cold on Election Day in 2006."

-WILLisms.com: Is this a boxing match?

DNC: "Winning this struggle over the future of Social Security is essential. We've got to demonstrate our determination and our grassroots power right out of the box in 2005. Otherwise, Bush and the Republicans will try to roll over us on one issue after another for four long years."

-WILLisms.com: Bush and the Republicans are the majority party, so they are pretty much going to roll over the Democrats on everything in the near future. That is how democracies work. The winners get to govern.

DNC: "We will never let that happen."

-WILLisms.com: Unless you are contemplating a coup, yes you will.

DNC: "Let's set the tone right now in the seven days leading up to the President's State of the Union Address."

-WILLisms.com: A tone of bitterness, of hyperbole, of anger, and of anti-reform obstructionism? That one does not seem like much of a winner. This line is a good example of the modus operandi of Democrats during the past few years.

First, they say that Bush promised to change the tone in Washington, that he promised to be a uniter not a divider. Then they make the tone as bad as possible. Finally, they point at Bush and say he didn't live up to his promise.

DNC: "Thank you for adding your energy and passion to this critical initiative.
https://www.democrats.org/support

Sincerely,
Doug, Eric, Jesse, Nancy, Morra, and Josh
The DNC Internet Team"

WILLisms.com: So, the gist of the letter is essentially, "we hate Bush, we hate reform, Social Security is perfectly fine now, give us money."

Also included is a graphic on the side:

DNC: "Stop Bush Cold

On February 2, Bush will try to mislead the American people on Social Security. But with your help, we will spread the truth with our 'Watch Bush Mislead' fact sheet."

WILLisms.com looks forward to reading "the truth" as the DNC sees it.

DNC: "Act now to help sap the strength from Bush's effort to use the power of the presidency to break the back of Social Security."

-WILLisms.com: If only Democrats had some kryptonite, they might be able to "sap the strength" of the President.

Now, the good guys-

The George W. Bush Store now has merchandise related to Social Security reform. T-shirts, buttons, bumper stickers, yard signs. Everything you need to express your support for Social Security reform.

No, really.

Here are some examples (you can click on image to purchase the item at the George W. Bush Store):

The George W. Bush store comments, in its e-mail, on why it now offers Social Security reform merchandise:

"Spalding Group’s goal is to provide materials that enable individuals to visibly advocate support of President Bush and one of his top priorities in his second term in office, strengthening Social Security.

'It is impossible to create a political movement without materials that allow people to publicly identify with the issue,' said Ted Jackson, founder and President of Spalding Group. 'It is tempting to trivialize the impact and importance of these items, however our experience is that people want to be heard and want to show their support for this President.'"

Let the games begin. May the best reform win.

If you are a merchandise person, you might also check out the WILLisms.com gift shop, where you can buy gear that promotes the Bush-led free market revolution:

Posted by Will Franklin · 27 January 2005 05:15 PM · Comments (0)

Tort Reform Gaining Momentum.

The Economist reports that momentum is gathering behind tort reform in America.

"Next week Arlen Specter, a Republican senator, is set to introduce a bill that is intended to break the deadlock over asbestos litigation while limiting the exposure of firms and insurance companies to future claims. Bill Frist, the Senate majority leader, hopes to bring a bill to change the rules on class-action lawsuits to the chamber’s floor by the week after. Yet more action is promised to limit pay-outs in medical-malpractice lawsuits.
Most Americans agree that matters have got out of hand. According to figures from Tillinghast-Towers Perrin, an insurance consultancy, tort-system costs amounted to $246 billion in 2003—excluding vast settlements agreed by tobacco companies (see chart). That represented 2.2% of GDP, compared with just 0.6% in 1950 and 1.3% by 1970, when the tort industry began to flex its muscles. Tort costs grew by some 15% in 2001, by only a slightly less the year after, and by 5.4% in 2003. The main factor was a considerable rise in liabilities connected with asbestos claims. Mr Bush believes that much of this huge sum is money that companies should not have to part with."

Click on the chart to view larger version:

The United States is probably the most litigious society in the world. People sue for the most absurd reasons. Some people sue for legitimate reasons but demand absurd sums of money.

The most significant and necessary part of tort reform is in the medical field. Doctors are natural prey for trial lawyers; sometimes it is deserved, when a doctor is clearly negligent and directly responsible for loss of health or life, but more often than not, good doctors are sued for simply having the misfortune to treat an individual with a penchant for suing.

The United States is losing many good doctors, particularly doctors who perform delicate, highly-specialized, and difficult procedures, because of skyrocketing medical malpractice insurance costs and a general fear of being sued. Imagine if John Kerry and John Edwards had been elected. Tort reform would have been dead upon inauguration.

WILLisms.com will follow the fight over tort reform in 2005 and beyond.

Posted by Will Franklin · 27 January 2005 11:53 AM · Comments (0)

AARP Peddling Disingenuous Polling.

The Hill, "The Newspaper for and about the U.S. Congress," has obtained some interesting survey data conducted by The Winston Group, a Republican polling group, at the request of Congressional Republicans:

"In a poll that will be released during this week’s Republican retreat, 60 percent of the 1,000 respondents favored investing some portion of their Social Security funds into 'personal retirement accounts,' as compared to the 35 percent who opposed it."

In the Winston poll,

"... 78 percent of respondents believed 'we have to reform the Social Security system right now.' And 61 percent of respondents believed 'Americans are living longer, so in a few years there will not be enough younger workers to pay for the Social Security benefits of retirees.'

....

Taken at face value, a distinct majority does not believe Social Security reform is a special interest give-away. In the poll, only 37 percent of the respondents believed that 'President Bush and Republicans want to dismantle Social Security to give away money to their Wall Street friends.'"

The American Association of Retired Persons (AARP), conversely, recently released a poll "that indicated only 43 percent of their 1,501 respondents favored 'private accounts.'" The AARP, one of the larger lobbying organizations in the United States, opposes personal market accounts in Social Security, and has joined the fight against Social Security reform.

However, putting aside the use of the radioactive term "privatization" by AARP pollsters, as The Hill notes, the AARP survey is not a representative sample of America, and therefore not really adequately scientific--- or useful. In fact:

"[The] AARP did not interview workers under 30 for its poll."

WILLisms.com is appalled at the Machiavellian underhandedness of this move, which is clearly an attempt to scare members of Congress into inaction. How unclassy of them.

Stay tuned to WILLisms.com for more on the AARP, its strategies, its motives, and its unclassiness, in the near future.

Posted by Will Franklin · 26 January 2005 10:17 PM · Comments (1)

Big Winners In Social Security Reform: Minorities.

Some Democrats opposing Social Security reform claim that Bush really just wants to benefit the wealthy at the expense of the poor. "Vermeer," writing at democraticunderground.com, argues:

"If you are middle-class or poor and support Bush's 'piratization' of Social Security, you have been brainwashed and bamboozled. If you work for a living and support Bush's 'piratization' of Social Security, you have been brainwashed and bamboozled.... Bush's 'piratization' plan for Social Security will harm all but the wealthy and elite investor class."

Sure, democraticunderground.com sometimes resembles a gurgling dungeon of wild-eyed crazies, and therefore a bit of a straw man, easy prey, but mainstream Democrats use the same disingenuous class warfare strategies found in the comments of "Vermeer." During the 2004 campaign, Massachusetts Senator John Forbes Kerry published a 9-page manifesto titled "George Bush’s Social Security Plan Benefits the Banks That Contribute To Him." Kerry argued throughout the campaign that Social Security reform was an excuse for a big Wall Street giveaway.

In reality, minorities, held back by the current system, are a group that could see some of the more profound benefits from Social Security reform.

Michael Tanner, director of the Cato Institute's Project on Social Security, notes:

"Perhaps no group has as much at stake in the debate over Social Security reform as do African Americans. Elderly African Americans are much more likely than their white counterparts to be dependent on Social Security benefits for most or all of their retirement income, yet the current system often works to their disadvantage.
Despite a progressive benefit structure, Social Security benefits are inadequate to provide for the retirement needs of the elderly poor, leaving nearly 30 percent of African-American seniors in poverty. Moreover, because African Americans generally have shorter life expectancies than do whites, they receive less total Social Security payments over the course of their lifetimes.

Social Security also contributes to the growing wealth gap between blacks and whites. Because Social Security taxes squeeze out other forms of saving and investment, especially for low-income workers, many African Americans are unable to accumulate real wealth. And, since Social Security benefits are not inheritable, that wealth inequity is compounded from generation to generation.

Traditional Social Security reforms such as raising the retirement age, cutting benefits, or increasing taxes would only make the problem worse. On the other hand, African Americans would be among those with the most to gain from the privatization of Social Security—transforming the program into a system of individually owned, privately invested accounts."

National Review Online contributing editor Deroy Murdoch, who is, incidentally, African-American, believes "Personal retirement accounts are pro-black, too." He asks, rhetorically, "how raw a deal is Social Security for black Americans?"

African-Americans, Murdoch points out,

"...receive nearly $21,000 less on a lifetime basis from Social Security's retirement program than whites with similar income and marital status.
Largely due to differences in life expectancy, Social Security essentially pumps money from the pockets of blacks into those of whites."

Murdoch continues:

"A typical, two-earner couple born in 1970 can anticipate a 2.24% return on their payroll taxes, the Social Security Administration estimates. 'That's as close to lazy money as you can get,' laments Harry Alford, president of the National Black Chamber of Commerce. 'We can get better returns on investment than that.' In fact, according to a Chicago-based financial consultancy called Ibbotson Associates, the S&P 500 delivered average, inflation-adjusted, annual returns of 7.4% between 1926 and 2001, even accounting for the Great Depression, World War II, Vietnam, Watergate, that 1970s energy crisis, and the 1990-91 and 2001 downturns."

The Los Angeles Times reports that President Bush is intent on making the pitch to African-Americans:

"President Bush told African American leaders that the government retirement program shortchanged blacks, whose relatively shorter lifespan meant that they paid more in payroll taxes than they eventually received in benefits.
Bush's comments came during a private White House meeting with 22 black religious and business leaders who backed his reelection last year — marking a new line of argument in his attempts to win support for adding worker-owned investment accounts to Social Security."

While the President's inroads into the African-American community are modest, at best, there are indeed some black leaders who understand that new solutions are necessary to address stagnating problems.

"I am, was, and always will be a catalyst for change."
-Shirley Chisholm, first African-American woman elected to the U.S. Congress.

One wonders whether Shirley Chisholm really meant that. Would Shirley Chisholm have accepted the dysfunctional status quo in Social Security, harmful to African-Americans, disadvantaging the poor, based on crass partisanship? Or would she have been a catalyst for change, an instrument for reform, an advocate for her constituents? Would Shirley Chisholm have taken the easy way out, avoiding necessary reform, using the issue to demagogue to her base? Or would she have broken ranks from her party to do something to help African-Americans?

What can an anti-reform reactionary like Sheila Jackson Lee (her website indicates "the Congresswoman is fighting the Republican plan to privatize Social Security") learn from Shirley Chisholm's philosophy?

Social Security reform could lift a generation of African-Americans out of poverty; it could help the poor accumulate wealth and pass it on to future generations. Republicans need to work on their sales pitch to African-Americans, but, ultimately, if Democrats remain devoted to the failed status quo on Social Security and other issues affecting African-Americans, Republicans won't need much of a sales pitch; if Democrats continue to take the black vote for granted, African-Americans in droves will come home to the party of Lincoln.

The question of why African-Americans continue to vote roughly 9-1 for Democrats, without demanding any results in return, is an interesting one, and one WILLisms.com will tackle in the future.

Posted by Will Franklin · 26 January 2005 12:42 PM · Comments (0)

"Because every American should have their own nest egg."

The Club For Growth has launched a blog called SocialSecurityChoice.com, that "seeks to promote 'The Ownership Society' by advocating personal accounts for Social Security."

The blog is already up and roaring with great content. For example, Adam Doverspike notes:

"So many Democrats have decided to discard the fact that Social Security is on the verge of a major crisis. I enjoy calling them the Flat Earthers. The Flat Earthers seems to believe we have the best system ever and it serves everyone wonderfully. Over here in reality, we face a real shortfall of finances in my lifetime and we need to fix the system before it hits the fan."

Doverspike also notes life expectacy rates for different demographic groups:

Demographic --- Life Expectancy
All Americans 77.3

Above Average
White Females 80.3
Females 79.9
All White-Americans 77.7

Below Average
Black Females 75.6
White Males 75.1
Males 74.5
All Black-Americans 72.3
Black Males 68.8

Essentially, because of the trends expressed in this data, not only does the average African-American pay a greater proportion of his income into Social Security over his lifetime, but African-Americans receive less benefits, on average, relative to groups with longer life expectancy rates.

Also of note is this post, which offers a "historical look at the OASDI portion of the FICA tax rate since Social Security was created. (OASDI - Old Age, Survivors, and Disability Insurance)."

Calendar Year ---------> OASDI Tax Rate
1937-49 ---------> 1.000

1950 ------------> 1.500

1951-53 ---------> 1.500

1954-56 ---------> 2.000

1957-58 ---------> 2.250

1959 ------------> 2.500

1960-61 ---------> 3.000

1962 ------------> 3.125

1963-65 ---------> 3.625

1966 ------------> 3.850

1967 ------------> 3.900

1968 ------------> 3.800

1969-70 ---------> 4.200

1971-72 ---------> 4.600

1973 ------------> 4.850

1974-77 ---------> 4.950

1978 ------------> 5.050

1979-80 ---------> 5.080

1981 ------------> 5.350

1982-83 ---------> 5.400

1984-87 ---------> 5.700

1988-89 ---------> 6.060

1990-2005 -------> 6.200

Notice a trend?

Stay tuned to WILLisms.com for more on why the greatest beneficiaries of Social Security reform will be minorities.

Posted by Will Franklin · 26 January 2005 10:30 AM · Comments (2)

Introducing Guest Blogger Ian Pittman

From time to time, WILLisms.com will invite individuals to make contributions to the site. These contributions will focus on a variety of issues, some about which we care a lot, some about which we know very little. They will be from a variety of ideological and political perspectives, a variety of geographical locations, and a variety of races and religions.

Some of these people have their own blogs, some will down the line. Some may not want to mess with the administrative and computing side of the blogging, but they still have interesting and insightful things to say every now and then.

WILLisms.com's first guest contributor is Ian Pittman, a senior at The University of Texas at Austin. He intends to develop his own blog in the future, but in the meantime, his occasional contribution is welcome on WILLisms.com.

In 2001, the founder of WILLisms.com worked for John Cornyn at the O.A.G. (Office of the Attorney General), in Austin, Texas, while in college. Incidentally, we "blogged" for him, getting into work at bloody 5:30 in the mañana, every weekday, to prepare news clips on relevant issues to the agency. Occasionally, then-"General" Cornyn even solicited commentary and analysis from us, as he prepared for his Senate run.

Ian's comments are right on the money. Senator Cornyn is an effective advocate for, and representative of, Texas. He is a good man, and WILLisms.com expects even greater things from him in the future.

Regarding the issue of Senate rules and judicial filibusters, it is clear from the treatment of Dr. Condoleeza Rice that Democrats, despite the loss of their leader Tom Daschle due largely to his obstructionism, are looking to block the Republican agenda. That Democrats, a marginalized minority, can drag the confirmation process of one of the more uniquely qualified and gifted individuals in the entire country for such a crucial post:
-First, it is absurd and is likely to backfire politically (appeasing the angry base is not good politics).
-Second, it is indicative of how important that magic supermajority number of 60 votes in the Senate really is. 55 is better than 51, but not by much.
-Third, it is likely harbingers the Democrats' strategy on judicial appointments, even perhaps Supreme Court nominees.

WILLisms.com looks forward to more commentary from Mr. Pittman in the coming weeks.

Posted by Will Franklin · 26 January 2005 08:49 AM · Comments (1)

Letters to the Editor

As a Texan, I suppose I pay more attention to lawmakers from this great state than others might, which is a shame when that lawmaker is the Junior United States Senator from Texas, Mr. John Cornyn. (I don’t know if he is still qualified as a freshman Senator, since he has been in office for two years, or one full congressional session, however since Senate terms span three Congresses, he might still be a “freshman” while his counterparts who were originally elected in ’02 into the House of Representatives and subsequently reelected are firmly entrenched in their “sophomore” term.)

But classifications aside, Senator Cornyn has actually turned into a capable public servant, which unfortunately isn’t always the case with United States Senators, or elected officials period. He was recently appointed the chair of the Immigration Subcommittee, and considering his prior job, Attorney General of the State of Texas (a border state last time I checked, which was this past weekend when I was in Mexico), he should bring plenty of practical experience. He supports President Bush’s Immigration Plan, and while some Republican lawmakers have publicly expressed doubts about it, I happen to applaud any effort to document foreigners currently living in our country, legally or otherwise.

Senator Cornyn has also taken it upon himself to express his beliefs in opinion pages of several different national newspapers. What is most striking about the Op-Ed pieces is that Senator Cornyn doesn’t resort to rhetoric or hyperbole when making his case, what he does do is show his grasp of the law governing the issue (now there's a novel idea).

Most recently, he defended Judge Alberto Gonzales' appointment to the office of Attorney General in an opinon piece in USA Today.

Judge Alberto Gonzales is an exceptional attorney, devoted public servant and good man of humble beginnings. His nomination to serve as our 80th attorney general — and our first of Hispanic descent — is an inspiring American success story.

Unfortunately, President Bush's political opponents are attempting to use his nomination to score political points. Specifically, they condemn Gonzales for advising the president that, although every detainee deserves to be treated humanely, al-Qaeda and Taliban fighters have no legal right to the numerous additional privileges afforded to prisoners of war under the 1949 Geneva Convention.

There is one important problem with this criticism: Gonzales is right. This interpretation of the convention enjoys overwhelming support. It is well grounded in the text, structure and history of the convention. It has been affirmed by three federal courts. And it is supported by the reports of the 9/11 Commission and the special prisoner-abuse commission as well as international law experts across the political spectrum. At the confirmation hearing, even the committee's senior Democrat and the two law school deans he invited to testify conceded that al-Qaeda fighters are not prisoners of war.

To quote Seth Cohen, "Oh... oh snap."

And Senator Cornyn’s response to Editorials in the New York Times and the Los Angeles Times this past December in regards to support of the Judicial Filibusters employed under the watchful eye of then Senate Minority Leader and current former U.S. Senator from North Dakota Tom Daschle showed that in less than two years Senator Cornyn has mastered the complex rules and traditions of his peculiar house of Congress. And considering he sits on the Senate Judiciary committee, his insight into the matter is even more pertinent.

First, in his letter to the New York Times (which was never published, way to show some backbone there, NYT):

November 29, 2004
Letter to the Editor:

I read with great surprise Sunday’s editorial praising the filibuster as a worthy obstructionist tactic in the United States Senate [Mr. Smith Goes Under the Gavel, November 28, 2004]. After all, it wasn’t long ago that the Times advocated just the opposite.

On January 1, 1995, the Times editorialized that it was “Time to Retire the Filibuster,” describing the tactic as “the tool of the sore loser” and “an archaic rule that frustrates democracy and serves no useful purpose.” Have times changed – or has the Times changed?

But beyond the contradictory statements, Sunday’s editorial also misreads history. In more than two centuries of Senate tradition, whenever a judicial nominee received the support of a majority of Senators, that nominee was confirmed. None have been blocked by a filibuster — until now. The current use of the filibusters is as unprecedented as it is wrong. The Senate Democratic leadership have already conceded this – indeed, they have boasted about their “unprecedented” tactics.

The filibuster is not sacrosanct. In fact, there are dozens of laws on the books today that prohibit filibusters on a variety of measures. Senate Republicans want to restore Senate tradition by ensuring that filibusters cannot be used where they were never intended: against a President’s judicial nominees.

The Times cheered previous attempts at limiting the use of filibusters. Why, then, the change of tune?

John Cornyn
United States Senator

And next, his letter to the Los Angeles Times, which was published, albeit in truncated form

An op-ed in Sunday’s Times by two law professors, Erwin Chemerinsky and Michael Gerhardt, praised the use of filibusters to prevent the confirmation of federal judges, and criticized efforts to reform its unprecedented use against nominees [“Senate's 'Nuclear Option'”]. Their own academic writings, however, contradict those views.
These two professors have previously expressed opposite views on the subject. In 2000, Professor Gerhardt published a book critical of supermajority requirements to confirm judges, stating that such rules “would be more likely to frustrate rather than facilitate the making of meritorious appointments” and are “hard to reconcile” with the Constitution, which “required a simple majority for confirmations to balance the demands of relatively efficient staffing of the government.”

Likewise, Professor Chemerinsky has previously written that the filibuster rules can be changed by a majority vote – the very tactic that he now derides as a “nuclear” option. In a 1997 Stanford Law Review article, the professor wrote that the filibuster rule “is unconstitutional,” and that “a majority of this Senate could eliminate the filibuster if a majority wished to do so.”

Opinion pieces such as these don’t get enough play, and they show the depth of understanding of the law, the Senate, and the legislative process that Texans have representing them in Washington.

And that's just one more thing we have on New York.

Oh yeah, and thanks are due to Will, for inviting me to share my thoughts publicly in this great forum. Hopefully I will one day be able to return the favor.

Posted by · 25 January 2005 09:35 PM · Comments (0)

Bush and Foreign Policy Realism

The powerlineblog.com folks have been noting "President Bush's Higher Realism" (here, and here), a phrase international relations guru Robert Kagan elaborated on following President Bush's 2nd Inaugural Address.

The latest exploration of Bush's articulation of a "higher realism" in foreign policy is by Joshua Muravchik, in today's Wall Street Journal OpinionJournal.com:

"Those who are skeptical of injecting issues of freedom, democracy and human rights into the conduct of foreign policy call themselves 'realists,' and they accuse their opposite numbers--the so-called idealists--of an almost juvenile enthusiasm. But a sober reading of the historical evidence shows that President Bush and his fellow idealists are more realistic than the 'realists.'"

Indeed, as WILLisms.com noted immediately after the inauguration speech, "both an idealist and a pragmatist, President Bush is a reformer and a revolutionary, a visionary with a deep personal commitment to freedom and liberty."

The proof that liberty is spreading, and that the United States can promote liberty effectively, is out there. According to Freedom House, an organization founded by Democrats and Republicans more than 60 years ago, the number of free nations has grown significantly over the past generation.

Posted by Will Franklin · 25 January 2005 12:24 PM · Comments (0)

Crisis, and opportunity.

High-ranking Democrats now claim there is no Social Security crisis, or that the problems are too far away or too theoretical to address them now, but in October 1998 the Clinton administration noted the profound and rare opportunity the United States has to preemptively fix a problem before it becomes a crisis:

"It is normally impossible for any democracy to tackle long-term problems while the crisis is still only on the horizon."

President Clinton, October 24, 1998:

"As with so many other long-term challenges, if we act now, it will be far, far easier to resolve the problem than if we wait until a crisis is close at hand. I believe we must save Social Security and do it next year."

Speaking to students at Georgetown University in 1998, Clinton noted the "looming crisis in Social Security:

"And all of you know to a greater or lesser degree of specificity, every one of you know that the Social Security system is not sound for the long-term."

Observing that the "fiscal crisis in Social Security affects every generation", Clinton argued that "we're going to have to rethink this whole thing":

"We can do this. President Roosevelt often called us to the spirit of bold, persistent experimentation. We will have to do that."

WILLisms.com believes Social Security reform is now years overdue. Democrats would be wise to pay heed to the words of America's most recent past president, their only winner in a national election in more than a quarter century. Squeamish, do-nothing Republicans sitting on the fence, worried about reelection, ought to pay heed, as well, to the words, energy, and the nearly-unprecedented coattails of the current one:

"...the problem is that some in Congress don't see it as the problem. They just kind of think that maybe things will be okay. But the structure of Social Security is such that you can't avoid the fact that there is a problem. And now is the time to get something done."

Posted by Will Franklin · 25 January 2005 11:40 AM · Comments (2)

Social Security, the National Ponzi Scheme.

WILLisms.com supports a Social Security program that:

1. is economically healthy, financially solvent, fiscally responsible, and sustainable;
2. provides Americans a basic guarantee of retirement security;
3. gives the best possible benefit to retirees;
4. puts the U.S. market economy at an advantage; and
5. provides some level of options, choices, and personal ownership.
6. protects the link between individual contributions and benefits, between personal effort and reward.

WILLisms.com understands that Social Security is a 20th-century program in need of reform to meet the challenges of a 21st-century economy. It is imperative to act now, while we still can, to rescue the retirement security of the WILLisms.com generation and beyond.

Social Security resembles a Ponzi scheme in its design, a type of pyramid scheme named for Charles Ponzi, who duped thousands of Americans in 1921. Ponzi schemes operate under the "rob-Peter-to-pay-Paul" principle, as money from new investors is used to pay off earlier investors until the whole scheme eventually collapses.

In 1950, there were 16 workers paying Social Security taxes for every retiree receiving benefits. According to the 2003 Social Security Board of Trustees Report, today, that number has fallen closer to 3, and it will fall even further, to only 2 workers per retiree, within the next two decades.

Indeed, over the years, even as payroll taxes have risen from 2% in 1949 to 12.4% today, the retirement age has been raised, the amount of income taxable by Social Security has been raised, and other superficial adjustments have been made, the system remains in jeopardy.

When Social Security was born, FDR and others assumed that Americans would always exponentially add to its population, thus ever-larger subsequent generations would be able to support smaller, older generations. Because of increased availability of birth control, women becoming more career-oriented, and other societal shifts in the meantime, there simply are not enough younger workers to adequately pay the benefits of the retirees. Compounding the effects of the Social Security pyramid scheme are the profound breakthroughs in medical technology that have allowed millions of Americans to live far beyond retirement age.

If Social Security were a private program, there is little doubt that the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission would be investigating its accounting practices. If the Social Security Administration were a corporation, zealous Attorneys General such as Eliot Spitzer would have filed charges long ago in courtrooms around the country.

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Flemming V. Nestor, 363 U.S. 603, 610–11 (1960), that Americans have no legal right to Social Security benefits. Social Security benefits are not guaranteed by the Constitution; Congress can slash benefits, raise the retirement age, impose means testing, and disqualify people from receiving their Social Security checks. Although critics of Social Security reform claim that privatization is a risk, the current insolvency of the system is the true risk.