So glad we got a Republican President:
<ul>
<li><a href="http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N03351060.htm">liberals too wussy to protect us from the big bad world</a>
<li><a href="http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=3750">keeps a lid on "big government"</a>
<li><a href="http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0504/p01s04-woiq.html">teaches others THE AMERICAN WAY</a>
<li><a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/03/opinion/03tierney.html?hp">refrains from dick jokes</a>
<li><a href="http://www.economist.com/agenda/displayStory.cfm?story_id=3930626">above all, a vibrant economy</a>
</ul>
All this AND an extra $150 off my taxes.
<!--break-->
Bush using ideas of a democrat????
...naw, not our <a href="http://www.socialsecurity.org/pubs/articles/debunker-050503.html">Hitler President</a>
""Progressive indexing" is the brainchild of a progressive Democrat economist. That a Republican president would see the wisdom in this plan, which is against his natural inclinations, only demonstrates the silliness of the so-called progressives who oppose it for political reasons only."
I'll just add that to the list of Republican Presidential bonuses:
<ul>
<li><a href="http://www.factcheck.org/article323.html">eschews nutty progressive ideas dreamt up by Democrats</a>
</ul>
If George Will is against it, then, dang.
Two things:
1)Cato institute shows their agenda with: "These criticisms are thoughtless reactions from folks who have opposed President George W. Bush's efforts to reform Social Security from the beginning and would continue to oppose any reform plan short of a massive, jobs-killing, economy-grinding tax increase."
Completely false and has been discussed at length here at rs.n. This idea that raising taxes intrinsicly hurts the economy is getting stupid. "Jobs-killing," that one slays me.
2) Who was this "Progressive Democrat." James K. Polk?
_______________________________
Still, it's true: Pozen is a nutty left wing progressive.
Left over from that era of high minded social progressivism that I like to call "The Clinton Years".
_______________________________
"The federal budget as a share of the economy grew from 18.5 percent of GDP on Clinton’s last day in office to 20.3 percent by the end of Bush’s first term."
So in recent history, Dems. use smaller goverment than Reps. when heading the Executive branch. I don't know if that's a "solution," but I thought this was a policy you agreed with.
Now that it's been pointed out that the administration's solution, progressive indexing, is puportedly a Democrat's idea, then, maybe I did mean to imply that.
Granted, Dems don't have the political majority to push any legislation that might address these issues. Why doesn't the (Republican) White House draft legislation for the (Republican) House and (Republican) Senate to pass? They did it with personal bankruptcy, they did it with Medicare Price Fixing (oops, Prescription Drug Beneft). So glad the President had a news conference, now at least there is some semblance of a plan to debate. Why do Democrats catch flak for "not having a plan" when there wasn't any substantial plan from the White House? Unless spending 60 days travelling the country (paid for by taxpayers?) drumming up a crisis qualifies as a plan to fix Social Security.
Granted, I'm _still_ not convinced that Social Security is the most pressing issue on this administration's plate. How about National Security? I'm about to get nuked by a pompadoured Korean karaoke misfit!
Historically, it's been higher, right? Especially in times of war?
http://www.tnr.com/etc.mhtml?pid=2649
<a href="http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2005_05_01.php#005619">yglesia s at tpm</a>
I'm digging the cross-polination of Yglesias (of <i>American Prospect</i> fame) on TPM. Even though he is just a 24-year-old Harvard alum.