It's Social Security 24/7 in liberal blog land today. As the White House's two-day economic conference gets under way, Boffoblog has already labeled the summit "phony, with all the circumspection and objectivity of a homecoming rally."
As for new ideas? "[T]he opinions expressed at these panels will range from A to B."
Josh Marshall drags himself away from the Kerik Kaper to attend to what he declares will be "the defining issue of the next two years, for Democrats as much as the president: Social Security." Marshall writes, "This isn't about the program's problems but about its success. That's why the president and his allies want to phase it out. It's not about financing but about ideology."
Marshall argues that "The worst thing that can happen for Democrats is that a few of their members of Congress get played for fools by signing on to President Bush's plan in the hopes that they can secure some small improvements in the legislation or reflected glory for themselves ... Whatever miniscule benefits could be achieved in such a fashion would be greatly outweighed by the way that it would lessen the chances for fixing the damage after the next election."
Kevin Drum continues his ongoing analysis of the Bush administration's claims that Social Security will be bankrupt unless a major overhaul is launched now. In this installment, he compares the financial integrity of Social Security with that of another massive federal entitlement program: Medicare. Medicare's prognosis is much bleaker than Social Security, he writes.
Bottom line: We have one real problem and one fake problem. The fake problem is, well, fake, but it provides a plausible excuse to do something conservatives have long wanted to do anyway. The real problem, on the other hand, is, um, real, but fixing it would take genuine political courage.
For the record, notes Drum, he'd just as soon leave the Medicare cleanup for someone else's watch.
Bob Somerby at the Daily Howler takes umbrage at the terms of the debate, warning that the media is falling into a semantic trap that only furthers the cause of those who seek to change Social Security. Disavow the term "bankrupt," he says. Writing in his trademark first-person plural, Somerby argues, "We think the claim should be challenged whenever it's made; we think this is the obvious starting-point for those who want informed debate about the future of this program."
And from the ranks of the God Squad: Jesse Taylor at Pandagon blogs about an Associated Press story out of Alabama about a judge who showed up for court in a robe featuring the Ten Commandments in golden embroidery:
This has always bothered me about judges who feel that the Ten Commandments should be displayed in courtrooms so that people can be reminded of them. The theory is that it's the "basic truth", and therefore everyone should be aware of it, given that it's what your case should be decided by. Personally, I've always been of the perhaps untrained opinion that lawsuits were decided by statutory law.
Adds Taylor: "[I]f this guy can't remember the Ten Commandments (which you should have down after about ten minutes of memorization), is he really competent to be a judge when actual law is just a wee bit more verbose?"
