February 2, 2005, Freedom and Weep
DESIGN by Robert Frost
I found a dimpled spider, fat and white,
On a white heal-all, holding up a moth
Like a white piece of rigid satin cloth--
Assorted characters of death and blight
Mixed ready to begin the morning right,
Like the ingredients of a witches' broth--
A snow-drop spider, a flower like a froth,
And dead wings carried like a paper kite.
What had that flower to do with being white,
The wayside blue and innocent heal-all?
What brought the kindred spider to that height,
Then steered the white moth thither in the night?
What but design of darkness to appall?--
If design govern in a thing so small.
With thanks to Mrs. TD on tonight's post title.
The President treated us all to his State of the Union speech, which ran to an annoyingly Clintonian 60 some minutes, including some sort of a miscue with "the Iraqi woman voter", and the usual applause lines ("make tax cuts permanent", "freedom", "our enemies", etc.) Ahmad Chalabi couldn't make it to Laura's box this year.
Well, look: whatever Bush says about social security, it's clear that Democrats are prepared to hang together on this (though as Unqualified Offerings observes, probably not the same universality of opposition to torture, at least as personified by the Alberto Gonzales nomination), but Republican Congressional members simply cannot afford to run for reelection after "voting to destroy social security". Bush knows it. Whatever he says, he knows bloody well it's not going to pass in any way more meaningful than a pilot program or a tweak.
Also unsurprisingly, Democratic Congressional leaders Reid and Pelosi's Democratic response is peculiarly lame (and devoid of principled alternatives short of "what he ways is wrong").
As expected, the President told us that if we set forth an Iraq exit strategy, "the terrorists will have won." In Axis of Evil TM news from the SOTU... Iran... still evil. North Korea... still evil. Iraq... good... freedom... democracy... Syria... now evil... Saudi Arabia and Egypt are, evidently, to move toward democracy... whatever that means... Palestinians to get an astounding $350 million... that's $350 million (calling Dr. Evil; a figure that astounding requires one's pinky inserted in the corner of one's moutn).
Look: nothing new, here. Nothing particularly radical in the SOTU. The name of the game was to hold serve, and remain in power. The Bushmen pulled it off. The stealing can now go on unabated. Sure, sure, the President acknowledged his support for the constitutional Gay Bashing Amendment (the GBA) and the "culture of life" (code for banning abortion without doing anything about it), but no one seriously believes he would really expend any effort on those matters.
In short, the whole thing smacks of a snooker: the President has something up his sleeve, that the rest of this "ambitious agenda" (which is actually designed not to pass and is designed to get Democrats high fiving themselves over "a victory") only to sneak in something else... complete repeal of progressive taxation? Repeal of any and all taxation for anyone earning over $1,000,000 a year? Half a million dollars a year? A draft? WHAT?
Well, contrary to their performance when other people's lives, liberty and money is on the line, when it comes to their own power and agenda, methinks the Bushmen have something in mind... almost as if they planned all this...
Comments
I've been smelling a rat about Bush's announced policy goals for a while. I keep telling myself it's just my overactive imagination inventing plots and conspiracies, although with Karl Rove around who can be sure?
Posted by irisclara at February 3, 2005 12:39 AM
Remotely On-Topic: The warblogger triumphalism about the elections seems a little premature in that
a) the elections as held were opposed by the administration for a long time (the timing and format were Sistani's ideas)
b) the only things remotely resembling a campaign platforms were "We're part of the same sub-grouping of Iraqis" and "We'll tell the Americans to leave! now!" I don't think they'll be able to deliver on that ...
Smelling a rat when a Bush is concerned is a sign of accurate perceptions.
Posted by Michael Farris at February 3, 2005 1:26 AM
I also believe that Social Security is a decoy. My bet is on a crisis in Iran which is so grave that it requires immediate action. (Lucy / Charlie Brown).
I'm going to wait a full week before I say anything about the election. Since neither the news nor the administration has been accurate yet, why leap to conclusions? But THIS TIME the wingers want us to trust the MSM!
Posted by John Emerson at February 3, 2005 11:42 AM
Rat predictions:
Rat 1) Soc. Security a cover for "eliminating all taxes on investment income." Everybody, including Dems, will approve a plan to ADD private accounts to Soc. Security, rather than using Soc. Security funds for private accounts. What the heck does that mean--has it been illegal all this time to save money for retirement outside of Soc. Security? No, ADDED private accounts means tax-free retirement accounts--i.e., IRA and 401(k) contribution limits removed. Voila! Tax-free investment income.
Rat 2) Iran "world's largest state sponsor of terrorism" and "we will stand with the Iranian people who want democracy in their country" means that Iran gets bombed with no need for proving nuclear weapons facility--sponsoring and harboring terrorism was justification for moving into Afghanistan, after all. So can attack Iran without even having to rely on "Bush doctrine." Note that Elliott Abrams has been promoted to Dep'y Security Advisor. Also note that in SOTU, refusal to participate along with Europe in nuclear facility talks with Iran has been turned into "working with our European allies" to encourage Iran to give up nuclear plans. We are definitely going into Iran--are already in Iran. The only challenge is how to do it either without requiring Congressional approval, or by convincing Congress that it's part of the fight against terrorism (i.e., can use general anti-terrorism funds).
Rat 3) So how will Soc. Security be "saved" from becoming "totally exhausted" in 2042? Contribution rates will not rise, and heaven knows you can't raise the contribution cut-off level--that would be increasing taxes on the wealthy! Instead, Medicare and disability benefits will be cut and the retirement age will be raised. Most likely, retirement age will be an "optional" benefit phase-in: 65 will be added as an additional level, like 62 is now: 1/2 benefit at 62; 2/3 benefit at 65; full benefit at 68 sort of thing. See--nobody's retirement benefits get cut--they are only "optionally reduced." What about disability? Not enough gimps vote to make this anything to worry about. What about Medicare? Well, see Rat 1: we have these nifty new tax-free "medical savings accounts" where you can accumulate investment income to pay for medical expenses in retirement . . . .
Posted by mamayo at February 3, 2005 1:04 PM
"We are definitely going into Iran--are already in Iran. The only challenge is how to do it either without requiring Congressional approval, or by convincing Congress that it's part of the fight against terrorism (i.e., can use general anti-terrorism funds)."
Two points:
1. Us and what army? (I mean that completely literally).
2. All the reports I've seen indicate that even Iranian dissidents support their country going nuclear, how is attacking something that the establishment and dissidents agree on going to change anything for the better?
Posted by Michael Farris at February 3, 2005 5:40 PM
Mamayo--
Social security age for eligibility is already slowly being phased up, and top incomes eligible to pay the SSI will probably be adjusted up (for inflation). The easiest and most painless way to make SSI solvent forever is (1) to adjust the annual increases to reflect increases in costs rather than the higher (over the course of time) rate of wage increases, and, of course, progressively increase the level of income that pays the tax, up to "unlimited" in a few years.
OR...
We could adopt my "sorta flat tax" proposal, and simply include ALL FEDERAL SPENDING AS PER CENT OF GDP, including social security/medicare, etc.-- a true pay as you go based on actual national income allotted for the program, which would ALWAYS make the program solvent, because we wouldn't be talking gobbledeegook about 2042 dollars, but would ALWAYS be talking in terms of per cent of GDP...
John, Michael, everybody--
We lack the man and womanpower to launch ANOTHER ground war in the region. We can, hwoever, launch a rather long and nasty air war against Iran, using our stealth aircraft ALL OF WHICH are based at ONE PLACE--Whiteman A.F.B. in Western Missouri.
We've used that base before for similar things, such as bombing Iraq, bombing Serbia... its a long flight, but these are young, disciplined guys and gals...
Plus-- we have good shit already ready to go over from Bagram AFB in AFghanistan, Diego Garcia in the INdian Ocean, the Gulf States, and of course, Iraq and Europe, not to mention our carrier groups.
I'm going with unprovoked air strikes against Iran. If we're smart, we'll find a way to make sure it looks like Israel had no role in it whatsoever.
The problem is, Iran MAY decide to retaliate under cover of fog or other bad weather, for example, during which our air power would be valueless and capture signficant portions of our forces in Iraq (conceivably all of them) in cooperation with their allied irregulars (think how happy Baby Sadr would be to help) in Iraq.
Just think how tough will look to the Arab world in the event of that circumstance...
Just sayin'...
Posted by the talking dog at February 3, 2005 6:20 PM
I don't think that was a rat u smelled. I think Bu$h farted the other night.
Posted by GlennK at February 3, 2005 7:55 PM
Revise estimate--White House today signaling that they are willing to raise the Soc. Sec. wage base and actually tax some of the "poorer" wealthy (say, from 90K to 120K?), as long as it's still at a flat tax and the rate is not raised.
TD, realize the max benefit retirement age is going up--but not very fast. Just raise the sucker, and reduce benefits further at the lower ends of eligibility, and you've solved the problem.
We have special forces in Iran now. Airstrikes are definitely next. Of course, we will also see the spontaneous uprising of democratically minded Iranians, making it a cakewalk. To quote Wolfowitz, "I'll be a matter of weeks or months, not years." (Oh, whoops, that was Iraq.) Nuclear weapons have nothing whatever to do with it.
TD, keep dreamin' about your tax plan.
Posted by mamayo at February 3, 2005 8:28 PM
The warblogger triumphalism about the elections seems a little premature
Hardly. The warbloggers simply believe America can and will play a large part in improving the world. The commie apologists who frequent this blog are pessimists, angry that Republicans control much of the show. They are willing to wield political power at the expense of maintaining the status quo.
And the more they bitch, the more I know America is right on track.
'Sorta like:
Smelling a rat when a Bush is concerned is a sign of accurate perceptions.
I say the same thing about the French.
Posted by Jihad Jay at February 3, 2005 10:25 PM
Jihad Jay what dimension of reality do u exist in? Obviously, Bushworld where everything is the opposite of how it really is.
Posted by GlennK at February 4, 2005 8:28 AM
Yeah...I understand what your saying. America sucks, it can't do any good, it's our fault there's so much suffering in the world. We should have left Saddam in power; the Taliban, too.
I don't share that view having been poisoned by Bush's optimism.
You see, in Bushworld, people love America enough to give her the benefit of the doubt in just about everything.
In Bushworld, people have confidence America can be a force for positive change.
In Bushworld, people's principles are not governed by whether or not their candidate is in office.
In Bushworld, people see the big picture and keep their resolve by not getting distracted by the imperfect circumstances of war such as Abu Shithole, Gitmo, politically-incorrect comments by Generals, fear our enemies will hate us more, and even the negative opinions of our friends-enemies in Europe and the U.N.
I like Bushworld. Here, I see progress despite the negative press coverage. I see people doing something about a great evil in this world - that's something as opposed to nothing which is what a lot of pussified, blame-America, let's-wait-to-take-another-airplane-up-our-ass people want us to do.
Bushworld is good.
I come to this site and I see nihilism, unmitigated anger, despair, hopelessness - hardly the qualities of those who consider themselves progressives.
But the doctor is here for you.
Posted by Jihad Jay at February 4, 2005 11:38 AM
"I like Bushworld"
But reality is probably a better place to spend most of your time.
Posted by Michael Farris at February 4, 2005 12:17 PM
We're all living in reality. Even you liberals and hate/blame-Americans are living in reality. It's your ignorance that makes yout the way you are.
And should some worthless Middle Eastern scumbag detonate himself in Times Square, that reality is going to be made more evident (or you'll all just put your heads back in the sand).
Posted by Jihad Jay at February 5, 2005 1:08 PM
Reality bites.
Unfortunately, we're stuck with it.
Interesting perspectives all.
Posted by the talking dog at February 5, 2005 2:02 PM