Here's What's Left: Saddam and Osama want to make Social Security go broke

« Fair and Balanced | Main | Admitting your mistakes »

January 14, 2005

Saddam and Osama want to make Social Security go broke

Many intelligent people have remarked eloquently on the structural similarity of the the Bush "social security is in crisis" lie and the "Iraq is a terrorist and we have to fight a war against it because it has WMD" lie. Looking at this Gallup poll, (link via Salon) though, one can't help but think that the Iraq war was just a trial run lie. Here's question #13:

13. Do you think the Social Security system will be able to pay you a benefit when you retire?

	Yes	No	Doesn’t apply	No opinion
2005 Jan 7-9	45	50	1	4
2001 Mar 26-28	52	41	2	5
2000 Aug 11-12	49	42	2	7

So, it turned out that Saddam didn't have any significant al-Qaida ties, and didn't have any WMD, and didn't have any WMD programs. But it was reasonable for this country to discuss whether or not he did. Deciding whether or not Saddam had WMD was a complicated task, and it required a lot of intelligence from both US and foreign agencies, and it required a lot of UN inspections. And while it's idiotic and sad that many people still believe that Saddam had either significant al-Qaida ties or WMD or both, you can see how it happened that they were misinformed. We know Saddan had WMD at one time, a long time ago, and we know he's a bad guy -- and some people aren't smart enough to figure out that 1991 doesn't equal 2003.

Social Security is different. There is some debate on what one should with its future, but there's no debate about some things about it. Like the fact that trustfund won't run out of money until 2042 at the earliest; and that even after the trustfund runs out of money, the system as it currently is will pay 80% of benefits. It is just plain factually wrong to believe that you won't get "a benefit" (as the Gallup poll's phrasing has it) from social security. It's not true. Not even a republican would say it's true... well, if you could pin them down and get them to make a clear statement. The actual numbers as they relate to social security are truly inarguable.

Would it be too cynical of me to suggest that there's a reason we haven't had any real social security debate up until now, the beginning of the second term? That the administration knows how ridiculous its position is, how unpopular it would be if the facts were known? And that before they tried to push their social security agenda on the rest of us, they needed to make sure they could convince the American public of anything they wanted? That if they can convince the American public that the war was worth it, that Saddam had WMD, had al-Qaida ties, or was worth taking out even if you don't buy into the WMD/al-Qaida bit, they can convince them of anything?

The Iraq war was a rehearsal lie, if you like. This is the big one.

I suppose the only thing we have on our side here is that polls are starting to show that a majority of Americans think the war wasn't worth it. Let's hope the Dems learned their lesson.

-- Michael

Posted on January 14, 2005 at 01:31 AM | Permalink