David Brooks gets all huffy today about how deficit worriers – “sober chin-pullers” he calls us – haven’t said a word in defense of the president’s decision to means-test social security benefits. He may have a point about the Democrats. But he must know he’s fibbing about others. Here’s his point:
What about the sober chin-pullers – the fiscally prudent worriers and deficit-fearing editorialists? Have they come out and applauded Bush for his courage? Are they mobilizing to take advantage of this moment? No, their silence is deafening.
Some high-ponts of the “deafening silence.” First up: Michael Kinsley, a writer Brooks must surely have read:
Bush … went from implicitly suggesting that his privatization scheme is a pain-free solution to implicitly endorsing a plan for serious benefit cuts. For a politician, that’s an admirable difference. Even more to Bush’s credit, the plan he’s backing is highly progressive. Benefits for low-income workers would keep rising with average wages, as now, but benefits for middle- and high-income people would be geared more toward merely keeping up with inflation. This allows Bush to say that no one’s benefits will be cut, although some people will be getting as much as 40 percent less than they are currently promised. But in the swamp of Social Security politics, that is really minimal protection from the alligators.
So Democrats now face a choice: Are they going to be alligators on this one? Why Bush has taken this on remains a mystery. There is no short-term political advantage, and there are other real long-term problems that are more pressing. But he has done it, to his credit.
I’d say Mike is about as perfect example of a partisan Democrat deficit chin-puller. Second up: moi. Money quote:
For what it’s worth, I thoroughly support the idea of means-testing social security benefits (the crude description of the president’s proposal). It’s an honest way of addressing the looming insolvency of the system, while protecting the neediest. It’s nutty to send big entitlement checks to people already financially secure in their retirement. The patent weakness of Paul Krugman’s spluttering opposition today is evidence enough of the merit of the president’s plan. If Bush can do this, nudge the retirement age up and include add-on personal accounts, he can declare victory at some point. The Democrats’ current complacency is, in my view, unwarranted.
I said the same thing on the Chris Matthews’ show – but even more enthusiastically. How much chin-pulling can you do before David Brooks takes off his blinders and notices?
FUNDAMENTALISM WATCH: Another spiritual development among some evangelical leaders:
East Waynesville Baptist asked nine members to leave. Now 40 more have left the church in protest. Former members say Pastor Chan Chandler gave them the ultimatum, saying if they didn’t support George Bush, they should resign or repent. The minister declined an interview with News 13. But he did say “the actions were not politically motivated.” There are questions about whether the bi-laws were followed when the members were thrown out.
Not politically motivated? I’m unaware that one of the Ten Commandments was to support George W. Bush. But I do recall one of them being against lying.
The Dish 