Don't get your hopes up yet on Social Security. While we may have won the battle last year, we have NOT won the war. Bush lost in 2005 because we had 45 Senators (plus a couple more) who were willing to shoot down his plan to destroy Social Security. He had the votes in the House, but would have faced a Senate filibuster.
Bush thought that he could do it in '05 because he had "political capital" from '04, and thought that he could pressure Democrats into voting for it the way they caved in for the tax cuts, Patriot Act, and IWR. Bush's slide from a 50+% approval rating in early 2005, to one in the upper 30's now, began when he tried to destroy Social Security, but if we lose in November (and lose MORE seats in the Senate, which could happen...hint hint with WA, NJ, MN, and MD!!) We could wind up with only 40-41 seats!
Bush's, and the media's response will be bigger than it was in 2004. Their narrative will be one about "restored political capital." And the "conventional wisdom bearers" of the Beltway, with their milquetoast Democratic travelers, will be telling our caucus to support privatization no matter what because...to go against the Republicans is "politically dumb." Josh Marshall will not be able to keep a newly demoralized (and newly-spineless) caucus in line in 2007, because people like Mary Landrieu and Tim Johnson (both of whom narrowly won in 2002 and are up in 2008) will be running with their tails tucked between their legs.
A Senator McGavick, Senator Kennedy, Senator Steele, and Senator Kean (plus a re-elected Rick Santorum and COnrad Burns and George Felix Allen Jr.) will kill what FDR created. They are GOP quislings who will do their master's bid, and we have Mr. Grover Norquist to thank for showing us this:
"I believe that when there are 60 Republican senators we will move Social Security from the present Ponzi scheme to a fully funded, individually held system."
Ya hear that? 60 Republicans (or 58-59 Republicans plus two or three intimidated Democrats facing 2008 re-election) will support privatization!)
It's not just Norquist either. Congressman McCrey of Louisiana is also determined to pass it in the House:
"Congress should make Social Security overhaul its top priority next year, while a rewrite of the tax code and revamping the nation's healthcare system probably will wait until at least 2009, House Ways and Means Social Security Subcommittee Chairman Jim McCrery, R-La., said today. McCrery said it will take the expiration of tax cuts in 2010 to build enough political support for tax reform, even though President Bush and many Republican lawmakers would like to tackle it sooner. "I think the president wants to do tax reform, and I'm certainly ready to help him do tax reform in '07 and '08. ... Looking at the lay of the land politically and substantively, it seems to me the more logical order would be Social Security, then tax reform, then healthcare reform," he told reporters after addressing the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. McCrery said Congress should take up Social Security first because doing nothing would have "tremendous negative fiscal consequences," and it is easier to solve from a policy standpoint than fixing Medicare and Medicaid. "If we can get [Social Security] done, I think that buys us the political capital to move on to the bigger issues of health care," he said."
And last but not least, Bush:
http://www.dailykos.com/...
----WE HAVE TO MAKE THIS ELECTION ABOUT SOCIAL SECURITY!!!!----
----WE HAVE TO ATTACK EVERY REPUBLICAN CANDIDATE IN CLOSE RACES ON THIS ISSUE!!!-----
----WE HAVE TO START RUNNING ADS ABOUT THIS NOW. WE NEED TO POUND THE AIRWAVES IN TOSSUP SENATE RACES WITH THESE ADS!!!!----
If we don't do this, then Social Security is doomed, and no-one will be albe to save it. For those of you who bitch and moan about Maria Cantwell, Bob Casey, or Ben Cardin, try not to be so ideologically-selfish! If you sit on your hands this November, you deserve to lose your hard-earned FICA accrual! SS is in danger in 2007 if the Republicans gain seats again in the U.S. Senate!