World cheers, Democrats boo

WTF? Just unbelievable political stupidity. If your heard John Kerry on Meet the Press you know what I’m talking about. And don’t get me started on Teddy Kennedy. Captain’s Quarters notes that despite their opposition to the invasion of Iraq, Chirac, Schroeder and Kofi F’n Annan had high praise for the Iraqi people’s courage in exercising their right to a free vote. Meanwhile, the Democratic leadership in America has nothing to say but its retreat and run mantra. Ed Morrissey nails it:

Moderate Democrats must be puzzled and at least somewhat concerned that their leadership has allowed itself to become so infected with Bush hatred that they can no longer recognize opportunities to build trust with the American electorate on national security. The automatic gainsay of anything accomplished by the Bush administration has almost completely destroyed their credibility — and the measured and intelligent reactions of Chirac, Schroeder, and Annan shows how badly the Democrats screwed up today.

It really scares me to watch the Democrats self-destruct this way. A one-party system is dangerous. Without a brake applied by a viable opposition party, things could actually get ugly and the fears of the liberal left could become self-fulfilling prophecies. Where are the reasonable voices in the party? Is there no one to take the sage advice of Ann Althouse?

Here’s my advice to anti-war bloggers who want to avoid embarrassing themselves: express relief that the feared violence did not occur, happiness for the Iraqi people who got to vote, concern about the new government’s willingness to be fair to the people in the more violent areas who were deterred from coming out to vote, and reconfigure your anti-war position into concern about the great risk that was taken. Worry about the next war: the more success in Iraq, the more inspiration to take on bolder ventures, and the next one might go horribly. Like a defeated candidate, focus on the next election. I heard one commentator on NPR say that after the great success in voting for the Afghans, the Palestinians, and the Iraqis, it’s beginning to “look like a trend.” What if the neo-cons are right? Consider it — without your usual reflexive invective. If they turn out to be right, don’t you have to be happy that you were wrong?

One can only hope.

22 thoughts on “World cheers, Democrats boo

  1. Pingback: The Wide Awakes » 2005 » February » 02

  2. Pingback: Long Time Gone » Social Security: Point/Counterpoint

  3. Pingback: The Wide Awakes » Social Security: Point/Counterpoint

  4. Maybe I am confused but wsn’t Kerry following Althouse’s advice? What I hear Kerry saying is that the election itself is great but that it is not the end but the beginning of a long hard road. He is raising national security concerns we he states that Americ is less safe or is it only a national security concern to you when Ridge raises the color code? There wasn’t much the terrorist could do beyond what they did and it wsn’t very successful but do you imagine that they will now take their toys and go home? Or do you imagine that in the face of the elections that they wil redoubble their efforts to undermine the new government-a slightly easier job than disrupting the elections? There seems to be no pleasing you. If a person wasn’t 100% in favor of the war going in you question their patritism, their committment to finishing the job and whether they can be truely pleased that the elections went so well. If you weren’t 100% in favor of going to war or if you are a Democrat anything you say is immediately suspect and never the right thing even when it fits your moulded script. Be honest what you are looking for is the Democrats to say “You’re right, ?Bush was right! Cheney was right!” Until you hear that nothing that is said no matter how thoughtful, how measured or how truthful will meet your test. Time alone will tell if Bush was right. Get over it for goodness sakes and quit trashing the rest of us and trying to define us in an imagine we don’t except. Anyone would think that doubts lurk in your heart the way you constantly seek affirmation!

  5. You might want to pay special attention to this.
    My post above is true as far as it goes but I neatly sidestepped one inescapable conclusion. I was not in favor of going to war with Iraq in March 2003. I did not believe Hussein had WMDs. I did not see him as threat to our security and feared that toppling him might well create instability, promote terrorism and cause Iraq to fall into the hands of Islamic fundamentalist. I did not think of the war as a tool to bring democracy to Iraqis or the oppotuntity for them to elect their own government. To be fair to me though that is not the way war was packaged originally. Origianlly it was all abuot revenge for 9/11 and our impending doom if we failed to strike swiftly-WMDs and all that stuff. Later when the war was repackaged (after the fact or rather after Hussein was toppled with an ease that would be surprising if he had in fact represented the threat he was purported to be) and the spread of democracy now hearalded as the reason for the war I could not listen to the message and I could not buy into it. I couldn’t buy into it because a big part of me screamed unfair! You changed your reasons for going to war because the reasons you originally gave were poked full of holes. This irritated me. Actually more than irritated me. So I adopted the doomsday mode of thinking influenced by sour grapes. By the way, I dont’ know if I would have supported the war in order to bring democracy to the Middle East. I am unable to divorce my feelings of anger over the initial hyperbole of the administration over the degree of danger Iraq presented. I am also disdainful that our own government had so little faith in Americans, that they couldn’t just say right out front that while Iraq posed no immediate threat that the Middle East as a whole posed a continuing threat to the world unless stability could be introduced through the democratic process. I might not know how such a pitch would have gone over with me had it been tried first before trying the scare tactics. I might have still vascillated, desiring our country to attempt other approaches while building a bigger coalition. I do know with a certainty that I do not believe war is the only way to spread democracy. However, hear is the inescapable conclusion one must draw about this war. But for this war, at this time, those Iraqi’s that voted Sunday for a new government would not have had this opportunity. Other approaches might have brought Iraqi to an election but not within two years. And this attempt may fail. A successful election does not equate to democracy. Like a new business, it actually has more chance of failure than success. But maybe it won’t fail. Maybe its time I shucked the once bitten twice shy mentaltity that I have labored under since Vietnam. Optimism feels good! Why the change of heart? This morning I read in the Post about an elderly lady who came out to vote, one of the few in her area. When asked how she dared to venture out she replied “I am not afraid.” If the election had occured at a later date this woman probably would not have been around to participate. Suddenly I was glad that events unfolded as they did because I am happy that this lady got the chance to vote. Finally I found something a reason that made this war woth while.

  6. Pingback: Prince Pundit

  7. Wow Carol. I am impressed. I appreciate you sharing your epiphany. As you might recall, I felt strongly about going to war, regardless of WMDs. Saddam would have been a problem at some point (especially with support for sanctions crumbling) and I never got over those pictures of children laying dead in the street from chemical weapons. I believed we should have finished the job in ’91, but better late than never. I also believe that the US cannot afford to be viewed as a paper tiger, when we say we are going to act to rid the world of terrorists and those who give them safe harbor, we need to follow through. I am NOT saying Saddam was directly supporting Al Qaida, but he was supporting other groups like Hamas and he could not be trusted when our security was at risk. But my main reason for supporting the war was a firm belief that by systematically removing tyrants who are threats and letting the people choose their government, they are going to choose democracies. And democracies generally pose no threat to us. So, my support was not entirely for altruistic reasons, but this election was the best possible outcome for both Iraq and the USA.

    Anyway, I can accept those who view the justification for this war as insufficient. I am however sickened by those who disparage democracy and opposed freedom as a worthy goal in Iraq.

    Thanks for sharing your thoughts. I admit I was worried that your dislike of the President would blind you to the wonder of the historic event we witnessed in Iraq on Sunday.

  8. John, you are absolutely right! I had to laugh when I read Carol’s comments above. I imagined her all flustered that Bush’s policies are working. It has been said before and it’s true now, anything good for the US is bad for the Democrats!

  9. MarkLevinfan your post caused me to chuckle. Notice how lightly John tread in his response to me? That’s because he knows that I left the Republican party because of its domestic policies and from the looks of things I will not be going back anytime soon. I voted for Kerry and I would do so again today. Kerry would have toughed out Iraq. He would not have withdrawn our troops prematurely and the election would have taken place on Sunday as planned. That cleric Sistani (?) set the time table for the elections not Bush. I don’t say that to take anything away from Bush but simply to explain why the elections would have gone forward regardless of who was in office. The situation in Iraq was already in motion and dictates its own actions. I would have voted for Kerry based on his domestic policies and because I did not want Bush in the position of reshaping the Supreme Court. A Justice sits for life or until he relinquishes his position. You can’t take a bad apple off. Clarence Thomas is an example of a bad apple. This observation is based on nothing more than his contribution to the court since his appointment. I don’t believe in tax cuts during time of war. I don’t believe in a “me” mentality that fuels the excesses in debt and ignores the future welfare of our children. The prescription drug plan is an expensive joke that benefits no one but pharmeceutical companies. I’m tired of the right wing conservative movement trying to legislate my uterus and my morality. Think about it. Abortion is already restricted under Roe v. Wade. Prior to that court case, abortions were legal in most states with very few restrictions. That’s right legal. The fundamentalist movement and the Catholic Church were beginning to make inroads -having abortions declared illegal in a couple of states, which is what led to Roe v. Wade. Don’t get me wrong I like kids, had several of them in fact. But I think I should be allowed the right to determine when to have children and be allowed to confer with my doctor to make decisions concerning my health. I really believe the nation as a whole does better financially when we work to pull people out of poverty even when it means social programs. I really don’t think Christianity needs to be enshrined or supported by our government and most certainly should not be promoted or advocated in our public schools nor dictate what is taught there. I like living in a secular society! I don’t care if homsexuals marry. I just don’t believe it will effect my marriage and it just might promote some morality among them. Think of them as a third sex. I’m okay with them adopting. Besides, science is providing them with a way to have children. I don’t have any problem with them inheriting from one another and enjoying the same benefits as heterosexual couples. And I don’t like big government which is what the Republicans have become all about! Liberal domestic polices, strong foreign polices that is what I endorse and unfortunately that is not what Republicans endorse so I guess I will have to remain a Democrat. By the way I think permitting young people -under 40-to invest some of their money into private accounts, with matching funds from the government or private employers, is a pretty good idea provided it is on top of the normal (or slightly reduce depending on who is making the matching funds) contributions they would make to Social Security. This would make their retirement accounts protable which is a good idea in our mobile society. You can even eliminate the ceiling on deductions for Social Secrity. Let SSA administer the program like a thrift to keep administrative costs down, few choices and automatic rebalancing. They way if the investments tank, which can happen trust me, these young people are not left without a safety net. Social Security is suppose to be a safety net not a gamble. Besides, if you dont’ keep the safety net in place and the investments do tank our country will end up paying for these people thorugh welfare one way or another. I am not wedded to any party. I am wedded to my sense of what is right and wrong and good for the country. Right now I think the Republican party is dominated by right wing fundamentalists. I am not wealthy enough to ignore the threat they pose nor are my children. Change the party domestic platform and I might come back.

  10. Hmm, I am not rich enough to pay for baby boomer’s social security checks or their Viagra, which I just found out will be covered under Medicare. And although I think it is big of you to believe we young people should be “permitted” to save any money we have left over after paying our bills and old people’s retirement – I would like to keep all of my money. And if I blow it and I don’t have any money when I am old-tough cookies for me. If the government keeps taking my money it will be tough cookies for me anyway since I won’t be eligble for social security until 2051.

  11. There you have it in a nutshell Ashley. Republicans say its your money and your responsibility. Invest wisely or suffer the consequences. Dems say you can’t be trusted with your money, give it to the government and the nanny state will do what is best for you. Hmm, tough choice, eh?

  12. I don’t happen to think that if due to a fluctuating market, Ashley’s generation does not have the money to survive in old age that their children and grandchildren should have their taxes doubled to pay for the welfare programs needed to support AShley’s generation. What do you think will happen? That America will simply let you starve? So you want them to basicially hedge your bets? I beleive a compromise is in order here that protects the money I paid in, that you plan to pay in and future generations.

  13. My generation’s children and grandchildren are already going to have their taxes doubled to pay for my social security. Never mind them, I am going to have mine raised because the best solutions Dems can come up with is (1)getting rid of the ceiling (tax raise) (2)a more direct tax raise by upping the amount workers and their employers put it or (3) raising the retirement age (also basically a tax increase). So there you have it-the AARP and the liberals in their pocket have indeed solved the problem. I can work until I die to pay your generation’s retirement. I won’t need SS because I will die on the job. Besides, if you would stop with the knee jerk reactions, and listen to the plan that Bush put out there – it is a compromise. Everyone over a certain age (those close to retirement with no real prospects of being able to save at this point) will still get their checks. FDR was a friggin socialist-it was a stupid plan from the beginning and it has just grown worse over time.

  14. You need to do your homework. I have no problem with permitting folks in your age group to invest a protion of your social security, a proposal by the way that was first floated by the Dems. I do have a problem with Bush changing the indexing of social security from wages to inflation. In 1984 the government revamped the retirement system for federal employees. The civil service retirement system was abolished. A new system was enacted in 1987 called FERS. For thre years there was no retirement system in place. I just happen to have gone to work for the federal governement in 1984 two months after CERS was abolished. FERS is a three prong system. One prong is a small stipend from the government. The second prong is a thrift savings account that workers can contribute money into and receive up to 5% in matching funds from the government and the third prong is social security. The amount an employee could contribute to the thrift account has risen over the years from 10% to 15%. When the accounts were first offered to us we were given a calculation formula for determining how much money we would need to save in our thrifts in order to be able to retire, along with our social security and small stipend based on the amount we wanted to have yearly. In order to ensure a yearly income of 30k I needed to save 400k. Well it is 20 years later and I am not even half way there. The down turn in the market in 2000 and 2001 (the market has never returned to its pre 200 levels) wiped out half of my thrift. That is the gamble you take. I accept that. Now however, Bush wants to reduce by nearly 60% the amount of social security that I would have been eligible to draw over the remaining (hopefully) 15 years of my life. That is calculated on my being able to withdraw at age 67. I might get lucky and realize only a 40% reduction. I had planned to retire at 60 but not withdraw until 67. I am too old to start investing part of my social security besides I am already gambling with my thrift. Social security was suppose to be my safety net. The Congressional Oversight Office calculates that with no change in the current system that by 2043 recipients will only be able to recieve 73% of the benefits currently paid to recipients but that will be at 2043 dollars not 2005 dollars. Right now I only pay social security on the first 87k I earn. I am willing to pay it on all of the salary I earn in order that your generation does not have to take a reduction in benefits. I am willing that you should have a portable retirement, i.e., thrift that you contribute to just like I do and gamble with just like I do. The social security administration could administer this plan for the smallest amount of overhead just as the government currently administers the thrift. The mechanisms are already in place. This would save the government a considerable amount of money, money that could remain in the system to pay out the benefits that I have been paying towards for the pst 32 years. Under Bush’s plan I will be an impoverished old lady. Because John and I are both federal employees making practically the same amount of money, any survivorship benefit that I draw from his CERS in the event he died, will be offset against my social security! One of the lovely peculiarities of the federal system. I will not be able to sustain a basic living above poverty level. I realize you are a good and dutiful daughter and that you would never let me starve or otherwise live poorly. However, if you experience the same unfortunate luck with the market that I have experienced then you will not be able to afford to assist me without improverishing yourself at a time when you will be ready for retirement yourself. I am nto totally agaisnt the paln, I am not totally against Bush’s plan but I am not totally for it either and who can blame me? There is also the concern that the additional debt the Bush plan would add to the already burgeoning national debt could cause a downturn in the market further killing my thrift! I am not asking your generation to continue paying into a system that will not be around to give you anything in return. I know the feeling as politicians have been predicting the demise of the social secruity system since I was 20! I am willing to pay social security taxes on all of my income. That is not a raise in taxes for you until you make more than 87k a year and if you were already making that much then I would not feel bad about suggesting that you pay it. I am willing to take a small cut in benfits but not 40% and certainly not 60%. The alternative is that you will pay for my care as an old lady at a time in your life when you probably thought you’d have a little extra cash and are ready for retirement yourself. that is what would keep you from being able to retire!

  15. As a dutiful daughter I will most certainly take your advice and do more homework. Unfortunately, I suspect that my homework will lead to a violation of the 5 commandment b/c it will prove you wrong.

    Just a few points before bed:

    1. You are paying ss taxes on $90,000 not $87,000. Do your homework.. (Damn, I have already violated the 5th commandment)

    2. When that socialist set up SS he was playing a game with the American people. He set the retirement age several years after the life expectancy. SS was never meant to be a retirement fund – only a feel good sop to idiots.

    3. I have pointed out already that I will never be able to retire. It seems my grandmother’s generation was a bit randy and my generation has a lot of people we need to take care of. (I remember that when I was at USC I had a Chinese sociology professor who explained to us one day that China would collapse because the “sandwich” generation would not be able to care for both their parents and their children. The equivalent is my generation in America.)

    3. Of course I would take care of you in your dotage, that wass what families were for before Big Brother.

    4. I skirted around this in my first post so as not to make you feel old but the cut-off age where retirees would still receive their checks under Bush includes you. (What the hell-I have already broken the 5 commandment by not buying what you are selling hook, line, and sinker.)

    6. What the hell good would 73% of my benefits due me at 2005 dollars in 2043?!?! (Oh, that’s right–accoridng to the letters Michael and I got from the SSA we are not eligble for full benefits unless we WORK until we are 75-so that is probably more like (to pull a fairly conservative number out of my…)55% at 2005 dollars. Whoopee! There is no way we could save that much by ourselves.)

    7. if you were paying SS on more than $87,000–oops, scratch that I mean $90,000–that would not benefit me in any way. The gov’t would either give it to crack heads or spend it on pork and I will still end up in a worse position.

    8. Bottom line–it is theft. The gov’t is stealing my money. It IS my money. I go to work everyday and I earn it. I love you Mom, but it is not your money and it is not the government’s money. It is my money. You raised me to be a hard worker but if you had told me so it was so the gov’t could steal from me maybe I would have considered other options. I could have been a crack whore-liberals would claim it was because I was downtrodden and I would have had a free ride for life. Or, I could have become a housewife with a pile of kiddies-conservatives would say I was doing my wifely duty and given me lots of nice tax cuts like the Child Income Credit. As it is I am paying for the welfare Moms, the soccer Moms, the Viagra needin’ leacherous old men, and I am staring down the barrel at having to fund the bingo and golf money for the enormous Baby Boomer generation–give me a break, can I please keep something for me??

  16. John,

    On a technical note: I think your site is generating typos in my posts. It could be that I forgot to spell check but (and maybe this is just Mom’s liberal genes surfacing in me) I doubt it could be my fault. Please look into it.

    Thanks!

  17. You definitely need to do some homework. You are likely to receive far more in benefits than you paid in. Not as much as my parent generation but yo wil receive as much as my generatio. I have to work longer than my folks did in order to withdraw. You are no doubt thinking that you could realize more for your money if allowed to invest it, however, you could also relize less. You could have a smaller kitty at the time you retire and it of course will not be adjusted for inflation or wages or anything else as over the years you are withdrawing it. In the 60’s SS was changed to index it from inflation to wages because more than 60% of the senior citizens n this country lived below the pverty level. Society was paying for them through other programs or simply forgetting them. You know perfectly well that SS does not go for welfare or any of the other things yo mentioned. Your SS will go to me to pay me back for the investment I made into my parents. What also concerns me is the removal of the safety net for your generation. You need to think os SS as a supplement and nto your primary retirement. You have a an IRA right?

  18. Let me start with a complete aside: (1) Happy Birthday Ayn! and (2) to pull a Paris Hilton, “The Cato Institute is Hot!”

    OK, now down to business. Social Security does go for the other things I mentioned because the government has been borrowing from it. And, yes, I have an IRA, but I can’t afford to add to it. That is a lie. If I am going to be responsible I have to admit that I could put money in my IRA but I don’t have a lot of disposable income and I spend what I have left over after paying taxes and paying bills. I am just as interested in living now as I am in living when I am in my eighties. And, I don’t believe that I misinterpreted your “73%” comment. What I took from that was this: in 2043 I could get (if I were eligible-which I wouldn’t be) 73% of the benefits currently being paid adjusted for inflation. If it were not adjusted for inflation, I guess you think I would be getting more than a 100% return. The problem is that, if it is not adjusted for inflation, it would be even less useless than it is now. Which brings me to my next point, you said that I needed to think of SS as a supplement. I do, which was why I referred to it as “bingo and golf money” in my last post. Even the Socialist Times (that would be Time Magazine to the liberals) admitted that no one could live off of social security. That money does not really help any retired person. However, if I could keep that money now I could invest it. And, despite what you think, the return would be higher and the admin costs lower. The government is bloated and inefficient. If we switched to private accounts, brokerage firms would get a windfall, but they would also have to operate in the free market so they would realize that the lower their fees, the more investments they would get. The gov’t has no such checks and balances. Furthermore, if my boss didn’t have to match my contribution he could pay me more and he would have to – again, because a competitor would do it in a free market.
    However, my basic problem with SS is that I want my money. I don’t want to pay into this system. I want to make my own decisions. I don’t CARE if my personal account would exceed or equal with what SS would give me – I want to control my own life. I see by your last two posts that you also have a healthy sense of getting back what you earned. That encourages me. You are worried about your own retirement and pissed that you faithfully contributed into a system and now you are afraid that you are going to be double-crossed by Uncle Sam. See, we feel exactly the same way. The only difference is that you will be facing it soon and I see a lifetime of contributions ahead of me that I KNOW will never be returned to me. I sincerely hope that people of your generation don’t walk away from the bargaining table because of fear. All of this rhetoric is fun, but really, if Bush’s plan makes any headway it will be after massive compromises. The Baby Boomer’s will get all of their money and half of mine. I am not OK with that, but, as a member of a much smaller and much more laid-back generation I have to take what I can get.

    Completely off the top of my head – how about something like this:

    1. Immediately cut FICA on both employers and employees in half for employees under 50. The remainder will continue to go into SS to fund SS for current retirees for the next 20 or so years. This amount will decrease incrementally over an, as now, unspecified amount of time.

    2. Cutting government grants to NPOs will fund the remainder.

    3. The current liability that is the SS fund will also immediately be funded by cuts in government grants. Any NPO without an independent unqualified audit opinion will be denied Federal funds. Those with unqualified reports will then be audited by the Federal agency administering their funds to verify that they are fiscally responsible. Any found lacking will lose their funding.

    4. A law passed that all bills with unrelated riders are automatically rejected from consideration, which would free up a considerable amount of money.

    5. A government commission, with oversight from Greenspan, evaluates current private brokerage firms and gives Americans a choice of firms and funds (with an appropriate risk mix determined by age) to choose from to invest the other half of what was the FICA tax. This also has a cut-off date, after which Americans will have to make their decisions for themselves. Because many Americans are unfamiliar with investing at this point, the cut-off date will be a couple of decades in the future. In the intervening time, all high school seniors will have to take a class on personal economics, responsibility, and investing.

    6. Further tax cuts (in the form of making invested income non-taxable until withdrawn) for Americans who choose to invest more than the 4% freed up by the cut in FICA. These tax cuts won’t hurt us because we have freed up a lot of money with 2., 3., and 4. above.

    7. Right now, any many instances, states get back less Federal funds if they do not comply with things the Federal government thinks they should (seat belt laws, drinking age, grade-level testing for kids are 3 things that have been affected by the heavy hand of the Federal government in my lifetime.) Here, in the interest of comprise, I endorse the Federal government applying pressure. States would have to set aside a certain amount of expected revenue in their budgets to meet the needs of any Americans negatively impacted by SS reform to get back money from the Feds.

    8. If there is still a short fall, we could begin a necessary trimming of gov’t excess by (1) making government’s hiring/firing policies match those of the private market and (2) eliminating bloated and unnecessary gov’t departments starting with the DOE. Any taxes paid toward DOE employees’ salaries the gov’t would keep first to pay back SS and second to fund general operating funds and the remainder of the tax would go back to Americans in the form of vouchers to private schools.

    Like I said, it is off the top of my head so I expect many holes can be punched in it. Resist the temptation unless you have something constructive to add.

  19. Pingback: buy valium

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *