The Dems don't need anyone's help to make them look inconsistent:
Among the Glittering Generalities to be found in the The Hyde Park Declaration
(here) on the DLC web site, signed by, among others, Rep. Roemer in August of 2000 is this gem, beginning on page three, item 5 (Emphasis added):
"Balance America's Commitments to the Young and the Old
An ever-growing share of the federal budget today consists of automatic transfers from working Americans to retirees. Moreover, the costs of the big entitlements for the elderly -- Social Security and Medicare -- are growing at rates that will eventually bankrupt them and that could leave little to pay for everything else government does. We can't just spend our way out of the problem; we must find a way to contain future costs. The federal government already spends seven times as much on the elderly as it does on children. To allow that ratio to grow even more imbalanced would be grossly unfair to today's workers and future generations.
In addition, Social Security and Medicare need to be modernized to reflect conditions not envisioned when they were created in the 1930s and the 1960s. Social Security, for example, needs a stronger basic benefit to bolster its critical role in reducing poverty in old age. Medicare needs to offer retirees more choices and a modern benefit package that includes prescription drugs. Such changes, however, will only add to the cost of the programs unless they are accompanied by structural reforms that restrain their growth and limit their claim on the working families whose taxes support the programs.
Goals for 2010
Honor our commitment to seniors by ensuring the future solvency of Social Security and Medicare.
Make structural reforms in Social Security and Medicare that slow their future cost growth, modernize benefits (including a prescription drug benefit for Medicare), and give beneficiaries more choice and control over their retirement and health security.
Create Retirement Savings Accounts to enable low-income Americans to save for their own retirement."
According to what I read in the above quoted declaration, the Dem's have already endorsed privatization - at least those Dems who are signatories.
And we now have Tim Roemer (A signatory as I mentioned) contending for the chairmanship of the DNC. Moreover, he's been endorsed for the job by no less than Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid. That whirring sound you hear is FDR spinning in his grave.
If you do a Google search on "Tim Roemer" the second item returned takes you here. Among Rep. Roemer's rather interesting positions on issues it clearly states "Create Retirement Savings Accounts. (Aug 2000)." Are we to believe that Rep. Pelosi's and Senator Reid's respective staffs did not even bother to do a Google search while vetting Roemer for the job of DNC chair?
It's hard not to conclude that their endorsements were the result of (Choose one or all.) incomptetance, indifference or ignorance. In any case, the endorsements are unforgiveable coming from those who purport to lead a minority party in a take-no-prisoners political battle for the future of our nation. One of the Repub's main goals seems to be the undoing of the Democratic legacy. It's sobering to see that some of our leaders would aid and abet them in this, however marginally. What is important enough (Besides being re-elected) to get these people to devote some time and attention to it? Where were Pelosi and Reid in the fight to decertify the Ohio election?
We find elements of the Democratic party not just endorsing the undoing of Social Security but also helpfully providing arguments for the undoing and the leaders of the party in House and Senate endorsing someone who seems to believe that Social security should be undone. The continuum of "I voted for the Defense Bill before I voted against it," stretches far back. Granted, neither party, nor any politician has a hermetic record of consistency but is it really necessary for the Dems to provide so much ammunition to their opponents?
How many more proofs do we need to conclude that the party of Wilson, Roosevelt, Kennedy and Johnson does not now govern for the simple reason that it is unfit to do so?