Yet another fun
private personal accounts editorial cartoon.
Yet another fun
private personal accounts editorial cartoon.
Okay, I don't make a habit of suggesting people listen to clips of shows I've been on. But I think this 90 second exchange I had today with Frank Luntz on the Al Franken Show is worth sparing a moment for. As noted earlier, here Luntz explains why reporters who use the term "private accounts" are showing objective evidence of bias against the president even though this was the president's own favored phrase until a few weeks ago.
There's one part that isn't perfectly audible. That's when I for the second time ask how there can be anything wrong with reporters using this phrase when the president himself has repeatedly used it. Luntz responds "used it", placing a hard emphasis on the final "d", thus signifying that the president has stopped using the term and that therefore reporters should too.
Apparently, the New York Times finds this argument compelling. But I have to confess the logic escapes me.
Give it a listen.
You can also find the commentary about it at the Al Franken Show website.
Oh, say it ain't so!
First, the New York Times gives the White House a smart salute and drops "private accounts" in favor of "personal accounts."
Now TPM friend Mark Murray of NBC News is signing on to the White House's new lexical directive and calling them "personal accounts" as well. From what we can tell, Mark and his colleagues at NBC's daily "First Read" were calling them "private accounts" as recently as 9:20 AM this morning.
Mark, please tell us this was a diktat from GE or Jeff Zucker and not something you came up with on your own ...
Why does a seemingly good-natured fellow like National Review editor Rich Lowry want to go about denigrating the president's Social Security plan by using swear words like "private accounts".
And he seems like such a mensch too ...
I was just on Al Franken's show a couple hours ago with Frank Luntz of all people. And in the course of the conversation I got to ask Luntz whether it was fair or appropriate for Democrats and/or journalists to refer to the president's policy as 'privatization' or the private accounts he wants to create as 'private accounts.' (As you the TPM reader know, these were the words that Republicans and other phase-out supporters themselves came up with.)
Luntz said that it is okay for Democrats to use these terms but not the press since that would mean they were taking sides in the debate. When I asked why this was so since these were words the president was using only a few weeks ago, what emerged in the course of the conversation is that it is apparently inappropriate for reporters to use a given term after the date on which the president stops using it.
(A logical corrolary of this reasoning would seem to be that they must use the new term the president designates, though I don't think Luntz said this explicitly.)
So whereas it was okay two months ago for reporters to use the term 'private accounts' they must now refer to them as 'personal accounts' because the president has now decided that that is the proper word.
Hopefully, Air America will post the exchange in question so that you can listen to or read it yourself and not have to rely on my (personal) account of it.
The New York Times seems to understand the new rules of the road. In the piece on the White House's emerging phase-out strategy, Edmund Andrews and Richard Stevenson are careful only to refer to them as "personal accounts."
Bayh votes against Rice? This Bayh for President blog proudly notes Sen. Bayh's vote against Condi Rice to head the shop over at Foggy Bottom and questions whether a senator willing to vote against Condi really deserves a seat of honor in the Fainthearted Faction.
I heartily agree. It's hard to believe that a senator stand-up enough to vote against the serially-incompetent Condi Rice could be so lily-livered on phasing-out Social Security.
Tom Toles channels Orwell on the accounts formerly known as private.
Spongebob welcomed by United Church of Christ!
"Absolutely, the UCC extends an unequivocal welcome to SpongeBob," Rev. John H. Thomas, the UCC's general minister and president tells United Church News. "Jesus didn't turn people away. Neither do we."
Verily, the sponge which the builder rejects shall become the head cornersponge ...
Articles in tomorrow's Washington Times and New York Times show the White House conceding defeat in the initial skirmish over phasing-out Social Security. But, of course, the broader battle has scarcely even started.
The NY Times piece ("White House Looking for Ways to Ease Opposition to Social Security Overhaul") describes White House efforts to tweak their phase-out proposal (largely through shifting benefit cuts around) to calm opposition among Republicans and perhaps break the solid opposition from Democrats. The Wash Times piece has money-man Stephen Moore giving advice on "Getting Reform Back on Track," as the title of his piece puts it.
This is where we start to see what cards folks are really holding.
For Democrats, especially, the president has shown his hand. He wants to begin phasing-out Social Security and replacing it with a system of private investment accounts. Clearly, they're not dealing with a president who's about making some adjustments in the program to ensure its longterm viability. And that really should be all Democrats need to know. What we'll see now is whether, if President Bush makes the benefit cuts a bit less draconian or fiddles with the diversion of Social Security taxes, any of them are inclined to reward him.
This is key to the entire unfolding debate: do Democrats start looking for ways to ameliorate the damage caused by the president's phase-out plan or do they try to push the debate further on to why Social Security is good for America and should be retained. (Needless to say, whether Democrats do start to soften their position will have a direct and immediate effect on the willingness on Republicans to get back on board with the president's phase-out program.)
The question is not whether President Bush gets to phase-out 30% or 40% or 25% of Social Security in 2005. At least, it's not a question or a distinction that should concern Democrats or, for that matter, Republican supporters of Social Security. In the long run, whether we phase out 50% this year or 25% this year and another 25% in 2007 or some other mix isn't a matter of great consequence. The question is whether we start down the path of phasing it out at all.
The difference of opinion and values is pretty straightforward: Democrats support Social Security, the president supports private accounts. What is there to do but to find out where everyone stands?