There's not much I can pile onto the huge amount of electrons dedicated to Karl Rove, but my blood gets boiling when history gets twisted. From the Boston Globe (natch):
His inability to get Congress to privatize Social Security or reform immigration will leave his boss, President Bush, with a meager legacy of domestic policy accomplishments, and no prospect for the historic political realignment in favor of the Republicans that Rove hoped to achieve.Or Newsday:
And legislative losses on Social Security privatization and immigration reform have left Bush in search of a legacy.Or the Atlantic magazine:
It was already clear that Social Security privatization, a longtime Rove enthusiasm, was the first thing Bush would pursue in his second term.The most radical Social Security plan that President Bush ever proposed was a voluntary program that would have allowed a whopping one-sixth of FICA taxes diverted into a private fund. This would have been an investment that grew, even with T-bills, at a better rate than the federal government's plan and could have been a nest egg to pass on to relatives after death.
No matter: the story had been written and perfectly objective media has spoken. Karl Rove was itching to kick Grandma out into the street, the bastard.
Bush/Rove floated their half-assed SocSec proposal because they didn't think they could swing anything better... and still, they got whipped soundly on what little they attempted. Any political rulebook will tell you that's a loss.
ReplyDeleteNot that letting Social Security fester is a "win" for anybody. But yes, the loss goes on Rove's record.
The point is that he wasn't trying to "privatize" Social Security, not that it wasn't a defeat.
ReplyDeleteWell, that point would be even sillier.
ReplyDeleteRedirecting money into private funds ISN'T "privat-izing" the program? Oh, really?
Or would it only count as "privatized" when the very last penny was hidden inside somebody's sock, and buried out in the backyard?