George W Bush believes he had a mandate to remake the American society and a major goal he wants to do in this term is to "reform" Social Security. And after the election, the punditocracy predicted that whatever George wants, George gets because he has already proved he is a master salesman. He showed he can sell wars based on lies, the illusion of economic success based on mediocre performance, tax cuts when the country is at war, etc. Therefore when he targeted Social Security and his plans to "fix" it, many beltway pundits decided that it was a slam dunk. Yet, it looks like there is an active backlash mounting. Even those who think that there might be value in private accounts are convinced that they cannot trust Bush. Brad DeLong puts it this way:
So why, then, is my attitude toward the Bush administration's Social Security non-proposal like that of the Dread Pirate Roberts?
Experience. We've seen what Bush administration proposals turn into. We've seen it turn a surplus into a deficit. We've seen its idea of a farm bill. We've seen its steel tariff--bad economics, bad mercantilism, and bad politics. We've seen the recent corporate tax monstrosity. We've seen the Medicare drug benefit. We've heard from Paul O'Neill. We've heard from John DiIulio. The Bush administration is batting as close to a zero on economic policy as an administration can--and economic policy is the bright spot in this administration.
Sounds right to me. So what's on your mind?