role reversal

House Republicans considering reducing Social Security benefits promised to well-off retirees of future

"Our opponents talk about values; we talk about numbers. ... Our message is too narrowly tailored to a sliver of the 55+ electorate..."

Now I've gotten pretty tired of hearing that kind of whining from congressional Democrats. But guess what -- that quote doesn't come from a Dem -- it comes from a Republican ra-ra presentation, trying to rally the troops one more time in their lemming-lust to walk off the Social Security cliff.

The latest "last throes" pitch from the privatization partisans is to reduce Social Security payments to higher income retirees. This approach will fall as fast and as far as those that came before; you have to kind of admire their persistent refusal to give up a truly bad idea.

And in an unusual display of logical consistency, the justification is as absurd as the plan.

Citing polling conducted in June, the presentation urged lawmakers to tell their constituents that Congress has been spending the Social Security trust fund on other government programs. "I'll bet this makes many of you angry. I'm pretty steamed about it myself," lawmakers were advised to say.

The presentation recommended another approach: "So, let me be clear: spending Social Security money on other programs is flat wrong. As your congressman, I am leading the fight in Washington to put an end to this immoral practice and protect your benefits."

The slide show did not say so, but the House has been under Republican control for the past decade.

Nor did it say that under the Republican bill, Social Security surplus funds would be placed in personal accounts, then instantly loaned, at least for the first three years, to the Treasury for use on other programs.

This report, BTW, is an AP story, but the online source is Faux, mocking tone intact. Who'da thunk it?