Trojan Horse Politics?

I'm surprised that one word in Bush's State of the Union hasn't gotten more attention.

That word is voluntary.

If people are given a choice as to whether they want to put some of their Social Security money into private (excuse me, Mr. President, personal) accounts, isn't that fair? Those who don't want to touch the new program with a 10-foot-pole can keep on getting the old benefits. Who could possibly object to voluntary?

The reason it's not getting more coverage, I think, is the Trojan Horse theory. That is, folks suspect that the voluntary part is just temporary, that if Bush can get his program passed, private accounts will gradually be phased in and future retirees won't have a choice.

The president's track record lends some credence to this view. He asked for big, but temporary, tax cuts, which helped the administration argue on the Hill that we could see whether the economy could sustain them. Then, of course, he demanded that the tax cuts be made permanent.

The same goes for the estate tax (sorry, Mr. President, the death tax), which is supposed to expire in 2010.

And remember when the president was pushing the Homeland Security Department (which he'd originally opposed) and slammed Democrats for objecting to a relaxation of civil service protections for the proposed agency? This was a matter of national security, the White House said. Now the administration wants to extend the change in union rules to all federal agencies.

The idea of voluntary savings accounts would be a strong sales point for the administration -- if people thought the initiative would remain voluntary.

The prez is in salesman mode, says the New York Times:

"President Bush took his proposal for a new Social Security system on the road on Thursday with a stark warning to younger workers that the retirement program will go 'bust' within four decades if it is not overhauled and with a call for his supporters to demand action from Congress.

"But a day after he made overhauling Social Security the centerpiece of his State of the Union address, Mr. Bush ran into a brick wall of opposition from Democrats in Washington and skepticism even from influential members of his own party in Congress, leaving him facing perhaps the toughest and highest-stakes legislative battle of his presidency."

Someone is already using the P-word, reports USA Today:

"Republicans in Congress voiced nervousness Thursday about selling President Bush's plan for transforming Social Security as the White House tried to clarify key details.

" 'I've talked to some of my colleagues, and they're panic-stricken,' said Rep. Mark Foley, R-Fla., reflecting concern about the political risks of overhauling the 70-year-old retirement and social insurance program.

"While Bush stumped for his proposal in the Midwest, his aides sought to address concerns over how it would work. Of particular concern: the proposed reduction of traditional benefits for those who invest in private accounts."

What a shock!

Slate's Chris Suellentrop challenges Bush's SS math:

"President Bush claimed, for the first time during his presidency, to be asking Americans to sacrifice. The man who told the country, and the government, that the patriotic way to respond to 9/11 was to spend lots of money now says he wants the nation to be more penurious. Think of the children, Bush said, 'on issue after issue,' but especially with regard to Social Security. The president painted his plan to alter the Social Security system as a grand bargain in which the current generation of older Americans, like parents saving for their children's college tuition, would forgo some small benefit so that the next generation could reap huge rewards.

"Sounds terrific. Except what Bush proposed is actually the exact opposite: His plan would allow the current generation of retirees and near-retirees to keep the current system, the one where they receive far more money than they put in during their lifetimes, while requiring the next generation to subsist on their own earnings for retirement. This isn't the equivalent of parents saving for Johnny's 529 plan. This is Mom and Dad asking Johnny to invest part of his allowance so that they won't have to bother with paying for college. You could call Bush's idea the Screw Your Grandchildren Act."

Dan Kennedy picks up on an idea we floated last week, that the Dems are adopting a classic Gingrich tactic:

"When Bill Clinton proposed a massive restructuring of the health-care system more than a decade ago, William Kristol -- then a top Republican strategist, now a pundit -- had some simple advice: kill it, sight unseen. As social policy, Kristol's memo was irresponsible; as political hardball, it was brilliant. The Clinton health-care plan was falsely labeled a government takeover of the medical system, and the president's defeat paved the way for the 1994 Republican congressional victory and the rise of Newt Gingrich.

"Do the Democrats have the backbone to do the same thing with George W. Bush's Social Security proposal? There are some encouraging signs. Senate minority leader Harry Reid says that not a single one of his members will support Bush's plan to divert Social Security funds into private accounts. But the Bush-Rove machine is an awesome sight once it gets revved up. Bush is launching a tour aimed at building support for his plan, and at pressuring Democrats in conservative states into getting on board.

"Unlike the Kristol maneuver of a dozen years ago, killing private Social Security accounts would be good social policy."

The Note gripes about Bush's "failure to (all together now) SAY CLEARLY THAT THE *POINT* OF THE CHANGES HE PROPOSES IS TO TAKE PRESSURE OFF OF THE TRUST FUND IN THE FUTURE BY LOWERING THE GUARANTEED MINIMUM BENEFIT SOMEHOW is, for some (read: 'us'!!!) the story of the night.

"When a White House official conceded in a pre-speech background briefing (the truth) that the personal accounts plan would not save the system the President described as being in peril, that got the day off to a fine straight-talk start. But the president's one-paragraph listing of past stray Democratic flotations of ways to reduce guaranteed benefits did not continue the pattern.

"Some day (we are sure of it), the president will give a whole big speech laying out the reason for benefit cuts and the level of guaranteed minimum benefit that he thinks is appropriate.

"That day was not last night, and we bet it won't be this week."

Paul Krugman in the New York Times seizes on the math of this unnamed official (more on him later):

"For years, privatizers -- including Mr. Bush -- have claimed that people would do better with private accounts than with traditional Social Security even if they played it safe and invested in U.S. government bonds (which yield 3 percent after inflation).

"But the official at the briefing made it clear that his boss was fibbing: if you invested your private account in government bonds, you would face benefit cuts equal in value to your investment, so you would be no better off than under the current system.

"The only way to get ahead would be to invest in risky assets like stocks, and hope for higher yields. But if the investment went wrong and you earned less than 3 percent after inflation, your benefit cuts would leave you poorer than if you had never opened that private account."

The New Republic's Jonathan Cohn pays Bush a backhanded compliment:

"By the time you are reading this, bloggers undoubtedly have dissected the material on Social Security in President Bush's State of the Union address. They've surely noted distortions like the fact that Social Security wouldn't actually go 'bankrupt,' as Bush suggested; it would simply begin paying out smaller benefits sometime a few decades hence, benefits that would likely be larger than those envisioned under President Bush's privatization scheme. Perhaps bloggers will have also noticed the most noteworthy new detail to emerge from the speech: that Bush formally endorsed allowing workers to divert four percentage points of their payroll into private accounts. That would be two-thirds of their existing contribution to Social Security, a larger figure than many people had anticipated.

"But intellectual chicanery and audacious ambition from this president is nothing new. What struck me, instead, was the way Bush framed his discussion on Social Security. For once, he actually seemed to be moving -- ever so slightly -- in the direction of intellectual honesty."

The Nation's David Corn is more complimentary than you would expect, starting with the embrace between the Iraqi woman and the mother of the fallen American soldier:

"With the House chamber awash with emotion, the two women hugged. Bush was near tears. Members of Congress -- perhaps including those legislators who had dyed their index fingers purple for the event -- were crying. In a nutshell, here was Bush's story of sacrifice, liberty and freedom. Sentiment -- sincere sentiment -- was in full synch with spin. The not-too-hidden partisan message: Match that, you naysayers. This was a triumph of political communication. And it was a reminder that despite the apparent difficulties Bush faces in his top-priority effort to partially privatize Social Security, he should hardly be counted out. This man does what it takes.

"Bush's approval ratings have been low, but in the aftermath of the Iraqi elections, he approached this speech as a conquering hero -- a vindicated hero. There was, of course, no mention of Iraq's (nonexistent) weapons of mass destruction. No recognition that America's standing in the world has fallen to an all-time low. No acknowledgment that the administration had failed to plan adequately for the post-invasion period. Bush has not a bashful bone. For him, the Iraqi election was a signal (from God?): full steam ahead. . . .

"This president does not back down. Perhaps that's why he won in November."

National Review editors, meanwhile, are high-fiving:

"This may have been the most conservative State of the Union address President Bush has delivered. There were, of course, some lines to make conservatives wince. Doubling Pell Grants will probably increase tuitions, enriching colleges more than helping students. The new money for defense lawyers in capital cases will have to be monitored so that it does not become a subsidy for left-wing legal activism. The president continues to support a 'temporary worker' proposal on immigration that most conservatives rightly consider reckless. But there were very few unpleasant surprises in this year's speech.

"And there was quite a lot to cheer. The president committed himself not only to restrain spending, but also to eliminate some programs. He reiterated his support for a ban on human cloning, for getting conservative judges through the Senate, and for a constitutional amendment to protect marriage. He called Congress to enact lawsuit reform, an ambitious set of free-market health-care policies, and a pro-growth tax reform.

"Above all, conservatives could applaud Bush's acknowledgment, and willingness to tackle, the runaway costs of Social Security."

Speaking of that background briefer noted by The Note, one of Media Bistro's many new blogs says "it was Dan Bartlett, the former communications director and counselor to the president, whose extensive White House bio explains that he's 'responsible for all aspects of President Bush's strategic communications planning and the formulation of policy and implementation of the President's agenda. He also oversees the White House Press Office and the Offices of Media Affairs, Communications, Speechwriting, and Global Communications.'

"Really, what's the point of these briefings where a well-known 'anonymous' source gets up in front of a room full of journalists? It's obviously authorized by the White House and publicized by the White House -- Bartlett's job is to spin and do 'communications' for the administration. Why do journalists let the White House use them in this way and why don't they stand up for their readers? Are the briefings really that valuable that they're worth breaking readers' trust?"

The answer is that everyone grumbles about it and no one seems to have the nerve to boycott.

Rummy makes some news with Larry King, and the AP picks it up:

"Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld disclosed he had offered President Bush his resignation twice during the height of the Abu Ghraib prisoner-abuse scandal last year. He said he wanted the decision on his future to be placed in Mr. Bush's hands."

That was just about when Kerry was calling for Rumsfeld's ouster.

As expected, Alberto is in, as the Los Angeles Times reports:

"Despite a stronger than expected protest vote from Democrats, the Senate voted 60-36 today to confirm Alberto Gonzales as attorney general. Gonzales, the son of Mexican immigrants, rose from poverty to serve in the White House for four years as counsel to the president. He will be the first Latino to serve as the nation's top law enforcement officer.

"The margin was the smallest given to any of President Bush's Cabinet nominees with the exception of the 58-42 vote by which the Senate confirmed Atty. Gen. John Ashcroft, whom Gonzales will replace. Although Democrats were originally favorably inclined toward the nomination, their opposition grew over what they considered evasive and equivocal answers to questions about his role in administration memorandums that appeared to condone some types of torture of prisoners held in the campaign against terrorism."

Finally, don't miss this riff by a Daily Show writer in the New York Times on how even Paul McCartney might be too much for the Super Bowl halftime planners.