First Door on the Left

George W. Bush on April 25, 2002:

I was honored to welcome Crown Prince Abdallah to my ranch, a place that is very special for me, and a place where I welcome special guests to our country. The Crown Prince and I had a very cordial meeting that confirmed the strong relationship between Saudi Arabia and the United States of America.

Let’s recap, shall we? Osama bin Laden is from Saudi Arabia. The hijackers on September 11, 2001 were from Saudi Arabia, and now it seems that the suicide bomber in the mess tent in Mosul on December 21 was also from Saudi Arabia.

With friends like these, who needs enemies?

House GOP Reverses Course on Ethics Rules

WASHINGTON (AP) - House Republicans suddenly reversed course Monday, deciding to retain a tough standard for lawmaker discipline and reinstate a rule that would force Majority Leader Tom DeLay to step aside if indicted by a Texas grand jury.

The surprise dual decisions were made by Speaker Dennis Hastert and by DeLay - who asked GOP colleagues to undo the extreme act of loyalty they handed him in November. Then, Republicans changed a party rule so DeLay could retain his leadership post if indicted by the grand jury in Austin that charged three of the Texas Republican’s associates.

When Republicans began their closed-door meeting Monday night, leaders were considering a rules change that would have made it tougher to rebuke a House member for misconduct. The proposal would have required a more specific finding of ethical violations.

Republicans gave no indication before the meeting that the indictment rule would be changed. Even more surprising was DeLay’s decision to make the proposal himself.

They got caught. They were planning on changing the rules behind closed doors. But word got out. Not wanting to appear that they do not have the morals they do not have, they decided it best to abandon their plans (for now).

Their effort to save face is indeed precious…

Jonathan Grella, a DeLay spokesman, said DeLay still believed it was legitimate to allow a leader to retain his post while under indictment. But Grella said that by reinstating the rule that he step aside, DeLay was “denying the Democrats their lone issue. Anything that could undermine our agenda needs to be nipped in the bud.”

Somehow Mr. DeLay thinks that his lack of ethics is the only issue the Democrats have? How much egotism can one man have?

George W. Bush and his flunkies will soon be hitting the road in an effort to convince Americans that Social Security is in crisis and needs to be revamped. Today’s New York Times editorial thoroughly debunks their claims…

The Social Security Fear Factor

If you’ve lent even one ear to the administration’s recent comments on Social Security, you have no doubt heard President Bush and his aides asserting that a $10 trillion shortfall threatens the retirement system - and the economy itself. That $10 trillion hole is the basis of the president’s claim last month that “the [Social Security] crisis is now.” It’s also the basis of the administration’s claim that the cost of doing nothing to reform the system would be far greater than the cost of acting now.

Well, the $10 trillion figure is the closest you can get to pulling a number out of the air. Make that the ether. Starting last year, as the groundwork was being set for the emerging debate, the Social Security trustees took the liberty of projecting the system’s solvency over infinity, rather than sticking to the traditional 75-year time horizon. That world-without-end assumption generates the scary $10 trillion estimate, and with it, Mr. Bush’s putative rationale for dismantling Social Security in favor of a system centered on private savings accounts. The American Academy of Actuaries, the profession’s premier trade association, objected to the change. In a letter to the trustees, the actuaries wrote that infinite projections provide “little if any useful information about the program’s long-range finances and indeed are likely to mislead any [nonexpert] into believing that the program is in far worse financial condition than is actually indicated.”

As it often does with dissenting professional opinion, the administration is ignoring the actuaries. But that doesn’t alter the facts or common sense. If the $10 trillion figure is essentially bogus, so is the claim that Social Security is in crisis. The assertion that doing nothing would be costlier than enacting a privatization plan also turns out to be wrong, by the estimates of Congress’s own budget agency.

Over a 75-year time frame, Social Security’s shortfall is estimated by the Congressional Budget Office at $2 trillion and by the Social Security trustees at $3.7 trillion, a manageable sliver of the economy in each case. If the shortfall is on the low side, Social Security will be in the black until 2052, when it will be able to pay out 80 percent of the promised benefits. If it is on the high side, the system will pay full benefits until 2042, when it will cover 70 percent.

Here, of course, is the heart of the matter as far as the Bushies are concerned…

The only hands-down winner would be Wall Street, as fees to manage millions of accounts poured in. (Those fees, not incidentally, would come out of your return.) Current stockholders would also stand to benefit, as increased demand pushed up stock prices, giving existing owners a gain at the expense of newcomers who would be forced to buy high. The affluent, who could afford professional investing advice, would also be advantaged, even though everyone would be taking the same risks.

The rich get richer — it’s the Republican way. And it’s the only reason Bush and Company are so gung-ho about privatization. They are not looking out for your interest. In fact, your interest is the furthest thing from their minds. Don’t let them fool you.

Gay Couple’s Sons Anger Catholic Parents

COSTA MESA, Calif. (AP) - Some parents and parishioners have accused the Roman Catholic diocese in Orange County of violating church doctrine by allowing a gay couple to enroll their children in a church school.

The group demanded that St. John the Baptist School in Costa Mesa accept only families that pledge to abide by Catholic teachings, the Los Angeles Times reported in Sunday’s editions. Church doctrine opposes gay relationships and adoption by same-sex couples.

“The teachings of the church seem to have been abandoned,” John R. Nixon told the Times. “We send our children to a Catholic school because we expect and demand that the teachings of our church will be adhered to.”

Sheesh! Some people really need to get a grip on themselves. This whole “holier than thou” schtick is getting kind of old.

I’ll bet this really got their goats right where they live…

The Rev. Gerald M. Horan, superintendent of diocese schools, said that if Catholic beliefs were strictly adhered to, then children whose parents divorced, used birth control or married outside the church would also have to be banned.

Three cheers for Rev. Horan!

P.S. A few people have asked why I do not link to the right-wing weblogs from which I frequently quote. The answer is simple, really — I do not want to embarrass them any more than they have already embarrassed themselves.

Update: Best laid plans… I had planned on going to bed after posting the above entry, but I thought what the hey, I’d read a few more blogs. Big mistake! Now I’m laughing too hard to even think about going to bed. Thanks a bunch, Rhonda!