Neither

President Bush today, commenting on his inaugural address:

As I said, it reflects the policy of the past, but it sets a bold new goal for the future. And I believe this country is best when it heads toward an ideal world, we are at our best.

There is nothing "bold" or "new" about wanting the United States to promote freedom and democracy, and Bush should stop pretending that he invented the idea. It is particularly galling for Bush to claim this idea as his legacy given his administration's rather abysmal record of coddling convenient dictators and turning a blind eye toward human rights violations. Bush is right to say that the US has the "work of generations" ahead of it, but that will involve rebuilding America's credibility and moral authority after four more years of his failed policies.

Wedge Politics

A few days ago, Rep. Bill Thomas made some waves by suggesting that Social Security benefits should be weighted by race and gender. A lot of people wondered what Thomas was up to — was this a real policy proposal, a poison pill to give Congressional Republicans a way to bail on the issue, or something else?

Yesterday, however, the White House seemed to be taking Thomas seriously. First, in the face of a rising tide of criticism, McClellan pointedly refused to condemn the idea of adjusting benefits in this way, saying only that "there are going to be a lot of views expressed during the course of this discussion." Then, during a meeting with African American leaders, Bush made the argument that Social Security is unfair to blacks:

Mr. Bush also encouraged the leaders to support his plan to add personal investment accounts to Social Security, which White House officials say could benefit blacks because they have a shorter average life span than whites and end up putting more money into the retirement system than they take out.

African-American men "have had a shorter life span than other sectors of America," Scott McClellan, the White House press secretary, told reporters. "And this will enable them to build a nest egg of their own and be able to pass that nest egg on to their survivors."

Of course, Bush is lying. In a recent article, William Spriggs demolishes the claim that a move to private accounts would benefit African Americans. You should read the whole thing. But Spriggs also tells us why privatization advocates are so intent on making this argument in the first place.

Privatizing the retirement program, and separating the integrated elements of Social Security, would split America. The divisions would be many: between those more likely to be disabled and those who are not; between those more likely to die before retirement and those more likely to retire; between children who get survivors’ benefits and the elderly who get retirement benefits; between those who retire with high-yield investments and those who fare poorly in retirement. The "horizontal equity" of the program (treating similar people in a similar way) would be lost, as volatile stock fluctuations and the timing of retirement could greatly affect individuals’ rates of return. The "vertical equity" of the program (its progressive nature, insuring a floor for benefits) would be placed in greater jeopardy with the shift from social to private benefits.

Social Security works because it is "social." It is America’s only universal federal program. The proposed changes would place Social Security in the same political space as the rest of America’s federal programs — and African Americans have seen time and again how those politics work.

I'm not sure whether Bush and Thomas are on the same page or not, but I'm not surprised to see the White House play the race card to try to siphon off a few Democratic votes for its privatization plan. And I'm not surprised that those appeals are based on lies. This is the worst kind of wedge politics, pure and simple.