Liberalism: Run By the Same People Who Gave You Howard Dean
Matt Harrison

Howard Dean, whose facial resemblance to the Grinch is politically apropos, hit the stump circuit armed with a toolkit of illogic and sophistry, hoping to "energize" the Democratic base that apparently shuns the concept of intelligent political discussion.

Indeed, this abjuration was heeded by Mr. Dean, who (apparently missing our memo) recycled the same argument he apparently has been using for months . After calling Social Security reform itself "nutty," the Grinch went nutty himself, showing that you just can't teach an old dog to think rationally.

Requiem For A Dream?
Matt Harrison

Socialists all over the country are happily performing eulogies for Social Security reform. By reform, I mean the meaningful reform of private accounts that reduce the inefficiencies causing the (now universally admitted, even by Robert Scheer and other statist columnists whose chronic aversion of fiscal reality is legendary) budget shortfalls.

Either because Social Security nonreform lacks logical justification, or simply the supporters ceased their assiduous and fruitless hunt for logical justification, opposition has fallen back on one principle. This principle, disturbing every individual with an elementary understanding of public policy implications, is that Social Security reform has lost steam within the locomotive tracks of public opinion.

We're Going To Be Old, Too
Matt Harrison

The demagogic caterwauling floating up from the Left's untenable opposition to Social Security reform should be considered a pollutant. Not only does it ignore the facts of the issue, but it creates illusory crises to divert discussion away from the relevant subject: the retirement funds of America's young workers.

Once upon a time, the Left was content to delude itself into a happy myopia where Social Security, that secular bénitier, was immune to budget shortfalls. Now, we see that such a position has completely evanesced from respectable politics. The liberal establishmentarians now spend their columns reluctantly conceding that Yeah, Social Security is going to face problems. But, for God's sake, don't overreact by giving people personal control over their retirement finances!

Workers of the World Unite!
Matt Harrison

Let's get down to brass tacks.

The policy of Social Security reform, by itself, improves the economic operation of the system. Consider: capital accretions are governed under a system with larger returns than the original. Therefore, the ideal would stipulate that the objective is to win the citizen the highest stipend upon retirement.

So why wouldn't you want it?

Rebuttal: Joe Conason
The Successes of Bankruptcy, the Simultaneous Desirability and Repugnance of Government Control, and Joe Conason's Other Gems

Conason's Article

The morning after the president's emotion-drenched 2005 State of the Union address, Americans may be wondering what he actually explained about his intentions for a second term.

Last night's rollout of the latest White House political product -- recently rebranded as "Social Security personal accounts" -- adhered closely to those familiar techniques. Bush proclaimed the imminent bankruptcy of the nation's most successful and popular government program,

Rebuttal: Paul Krugman
I really would stop talking about Social Security, but what am I going to do when I discover articles like this?

Krugman's Article

President Bush's effort to hustle the nation into dismantling Social Security as we know it seems to be faltering: the more voters hear about how privatization would work, the less they like it.

It is quite curious that you would cite an evanescence of public support as a probative example. President Clinton's health care proposals in the mid 1990s - a system effectually identical to the one you've promoted in past columns - died because of a similar lack of public support.

There are two relevant lessons: