Time for the Glue Factory

From one of our generous corporate sponsors of Inaugurathon 2005:

House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Bill Thomas (R-Calif.) predicted yesterday that partisan warfare over Social Security will quickly render President Bush's plan "a dead horse" and called on Congress to undertake a broader review of the problems of an aging nation.

[…]

"The problem with Social Security, narrowly, is that it becomes more of a partisan issue than you would like."

Is this guy for real? Social Security itself would not be a partisan issue if the Liberal and Conservative ideologies behind their support of/disdain for the program weren’t so vastly divergent. One would think that the notion of providing a modest stipend to the nation’s retirees, which they paid for through their own labor on behalf of their nation, wouldn’t be such a controversial notion as to provoke the commencement of a misinformation campaign to hasten its demise.

The defense of Social Security, and all it stands for, should well be the objective of anyone who believes in the right of every American to maintain a sufficient level of health and well-being after they are beyond working age, as all of us, fates willing, will be in that position someday. And is it indeed the ambition of Liberals to see the program sustained. Conservatives, on the other hand, take the opposing view, rooted in their disdain for the working American—including many of the fools who cast their votes for this assemblage of miscreants that now seek to undermine their very futures.

The matter is partisan not because of anything inherently dysfunctional about Social Security itself, but because of what it represents. For Mr. Thomas and his idiot compatriots to reduce the squabble to a mere “partisan issue,” disregarding both their avaricious motivations and their devious machinations is disingenuous at best.

Perhaps most provocatively, Thomas said lawmakers should debate whether Social Security benefits should differ for men and women, because women live longer. "We never have debated gender-adjusting Social Security," he said.

What the discreet WaPo calls provocative, I call piggish sexism. Tomato, tomahto. Although, maybe Mr. Thomas is on to something. We could adjust for race, while we’re at it. And hey—don’t married people live longer? That’s a good idea; it adds another level of bigotry against gays, lesbians, and hedonistic singles of all stripes in one fell swoop. In fact, let’s allow the actuaries to regulate Social Security; we can tie it into life insurance. If you’re too sick to get a good policy, you’re probably too sick to need Social Security, anyway. Especially once your healthcare drops you—a dead man walking hardly needs a government handout. Really what we should be doing is making sure that we get as much money as possible into the hands of people who will be around long enough to use it. Straight, white, healthy married men who attend church and already have lots of cash and good healthcare coverage are probably our best bets for Social Security. Maybe we should go ahead and dismantle the program after all and just change the rules so that those guys can simply tax shelter as much as their money as possible.

Wow. It’s easy to think like a Conservative when you’re being an ass for dramatic purposes.

Thomas's comments, which took the White House by surprise, reflected some Republicans' view that the White House has mishandled the plan's rollout and that a fresh start is needed to allow a chance for getting Democratic support.

No plan, no matter how fresh, no matter how cunningly packaged with an Orwellian name and a red, white, and blue bow, no plan that includes reforming the basic tenets of Social Security should ever warrant the Democrats’ support. Every Dem in Congress needs to stand firm on the issue and not budge a single, solitary centimeter.

Nothing would make me happier than see a feisty donkey kick this horse until it has exhaled its last pathetic breath.