Philly Inky said Dems in denial on SS - my response...

[harlinchi]

I emailed this to the editorial page editor of the Philadelphia Inquirer (Mr. Satullo, a responsive guy I respect) in response to an article regarding the Democrats being in denial on Social Security.

The article:
http://www.philly.com/mld/philly/11238457.htm


My response:


Well, as President Reagan used to say, there you go again.

How can the Inquirer, in good conscience, castigate the Democrats for lacking a Social Security plan while acknowledging that the president, with a majority in both houses of Congress, has advanced only the vaguest of principles with no mention of their costs? How can this paper allow him to be 'coy' about benefit cuts? How can it talk about Social Security at all without mentioning every time that funds which were and should be added to a 'trust fund' are now used in the general budget?

How can the Inquirer mention the budget at all without mentioning every time that the costs of the "war" in Iraq and other items are not included?

Now Republicans are angry because Democrats won't tell them how to 'fix' things. This reads like a poorly-written takeoff of an Ayn Rand idea in which Those-who-don't-know and Those-who-can't constantly implore Those-who-do-know and Those-who-can to 'fix it!', whining, "It worked when you were in charge! Now make it work."

The party in charge of the executive, legislative and, apparently, the judicial branches of our government is doing this in the face of their own 'politics of pull', cronyism and nepotism. Who besides Halliburton gets a profit-guaranteed, ten-year, worldwide, exclusive contract? It all has such an Ayn Rand-like quality to such a degree that an eerie sense of deja vu pervades.

My point is that because important details, which may have been mentioned briefly, elsewhere, are absent during the storm of misinforming articles, such misinformation continues to propagate.

Perhaps you could tell me: Are articles, ideas or points of view with a pro-administration slant pushed during your editorial board discussions? If not, regarding Social Security, given a Republican president and a Republican majority in both houses of Congress how can it assert that the Democrats are in denial? If the article's point is that the Democrats are not addressing Medicare or that the Inquirer is recommending its five-point plan for Social Security, shouldn't it be addressing the majority party?

I would ask that the Social Security discussion not be 'broadened'. Broadening discussions has not served the country well recently. We 'broadened' the power transmission debate into an energy policy debate which bogged down trying to decide how Republican-supporting companies could best loot the national treasury. We broadened the war on terror in to include Iraq in what I consider to be an egregiously terrible use of public lives and public money for private profit.

No, no more broadening for me. Let's talk Social Security, Iraq and the budget. Let's talk clearly. And let's clearly understand who is in denial.

[papau]

1. Excellent - well written! :-)

:thumbsup:

:toast:

:-)

[harlinchi]

4. Thanks, Papau and Frances!

I could use a frosted mug full of an adult beverage! Cool emoticon!

[Frances]

2. Excellent letter

The best point was that Republicans control the White House and the Congress. They have put forth a very vague plan on Social Security. And your paper says that the Democrats are to blame. For shame!

[Demit]

3. That was an unsigned editorial, a particularly repulsive one

I don't know if Satullo wrote it, but it shocked me not only for its protectiveness toward the Republicans, but also for the twisted-logic swipe at Democrats:

"...Given that, it's disingenuous for Democratic leaders to complain that Bush is ignoring the real financial crisis: Medicare. Yes, Medicare does need to be addressed, even more urgently than its sister entitlement. But having failed to put forward any solutions for Social Security, do the Democrats expect us to believe they would tackle with gusto the larger, more complicated Medicare deficit?..."

The Inky seems to be taking a right turn lately. I only see it on Sundays, having finally, four years ago, given up on what was once a good paper. That editorial was a piece of shit.