Over on Redstate they've got an interview with Steve Moore, formerly of Club for Growth and now with the Free Enterprise Fund. Go ahead and
read it. I'll give the choicest quotes below, but here's a taste:
Note -- RS=RedState, SM=SteveMoore
RS: How do PRAs actual help solve the solvency issue that SS is facing?
SM: Just to be clear, solvency is far less important than allowing workers to own their own retirement accounts and enjoy the benefits of substantially higher returns than under the current system. We would be for modernizing this depression-era program whether it had solvency problems or not.
(emphasis mine)
(me): So whether or not SS is solvent, that is, not bankrupt, that is, whether it exists or not, is not as important as personal accounts? A safety net is not as important as getting people a couple extra bucks when they retire (something they can already do in private investments)?
Another choice answer:
RS: What can the conservative footsoldiers (i.e. bloggers and readers) do to help accomplish meaningful reform? Do you think conservative organizations are doing a good job of using the so-called netroots?
SM: Three things. The first is to focus the debate on the benefits to workers, not the benefit to government. The "solvency issue" is code for getting as much money into the hand of bureacrats as possible, and it has been tried and failed in 1983.
(me): And here I thought that a safety net was a benefit to workers. Apparently it benefits the government to prop up the elderly poor, but doesn't help the elderly poor. I see. Smart bit of code, that.
SM: Second, we need to debunk this idea that personal accounts don't address the solvency issue. The White House is dead wrong on this, and it's too big a concession to make.
(me): This is comically bad advice, the kind consistently handed out like rice at a wedding to democrats by right-wing pundits. Sure, keep insisting that private accounts will make SS solvent, even after the originators of that trick, the Bush administration, have moved on to the switch half of the bait-and-switch. Good luck on the Saddam WMD's while you're at it.
SM: Finally, we need conservative activists to match the efforts of MoveOn.org and others to manipulate town hall meetings and other public events. They's been out there stacking the audience to be anti-personal accounts, and we need people out there on our side.
(me): I think the white house has done that for you. To paraphrase Josh Marshall, if the local congressmen can't stack their own audiences, that's their problem.
And finally this one:
RS: Can SS be a winning issue in 2006 elections for Republicans or is it doomed to be a liability?
SM: Personal accounts have been a consistent winner at the polls for the last few cycles. Beyond that, nothing would be worse for GOP credibility that a sell-out on this central agenda item. The best way for House Republicans to innoculate themselves would be to pass a pure personal accounts bill. Even if the Senate kills it, they could then run on a principled defense of reform.
This is hilarious! More great advice! I wholeheartedly agree! Keep only the proposal that most Americans have already dismissed! Brilliant! Definitely will win you seats in 2006. While you're at it, hold a press conference and declare that Republicans in Congress have all united in support of criminalizing premarital sex! A principled defense of reform if I ever heard one!
