| Why would the president of the United States proposed a change that will further create fiscal problems for social security |
the same reason he's spending money like michael jackson trying to buy off a boyscout troop; since the 30s, ending social security (and, later, medicare) was one of the prime objectives of republican conservatives should they ever manage to control the executive and congress.
by the time those aspirations began to seem like a not-too-far-distant possibility in the 80s, however, they realized they hadda problem. even if--and it's a big if--they could pull together the votes needed to wipe out social security, thier constituents wouldnt stand for it. wouldnt be no need for term limits for anyone legislator fool enuff to actually try to take social security down.
strategists like grover norquist proposed another solution and bush has been implementing it since day one.
all they have to do is keep cutting taxes and spending wildly until the day comes when enough american can be convinced we can no longer afford any social programs.
i don't know whether bush is actually planning to follow through on with the obvious abberation col gene has reported, but it seems--if nothing else--at least as cynical and machavellian as those neocons who hoped for a tragedy as significant as pearl harbor to help create the right conditions. (michael ledeen referred to pearl harbor as a 'lucky event' and his soulmates at pnac claimed--prior to 911--we needed a "pearl harbor event" for our time to push things along.)
col gene may seem like a blathering idiot to all yall, but in a time of lunacy, sanity is pathological.
