Hi, Bob!

Jim VandeHei's weekend WaPo piece on the Bush Campaignistration's use of trumped-up "crises" to sell the American public on really crappy ideas (invading Iraq being the paradigmatic example of a crappy idea sold on the lie of a crisis) has gotten a fair bit of coverage in the liberal blogosphere. I reckon I like The Carpetbagger's take on it best, but there's a lot out there. VandeHei notes that Bush is really pushing the "crisis" canard in his drive to destroy Social Security Retirement Insurance:

But there is a political strategy behind the rhetorical technique, too. The president is convinced that lawmakers -- and the public -- are not inclined to tackle difficult issues unless "crisis is upon them."

In a Dec. 20 news conference, the president explained. "Many times, legislative bodies will not react unless the crisis is apparent, crisis is upon them," Bush said, discussing Social Security. "And so for a period of time, we're going to have to explain to members of Congress that crisis is here."

Four days earlier, he told participants at an economic conference how central this concept is to White House leadership. "A lot of government, if the truth be known, is crisis-oriented management," he said. "We wait and wait and wait, and then crisis is upon us and everybody demands a solution."

But are programs such as Social Security really in crisis? There is strong disagreement between Bush and Democrats. The president, for instance, has described the Social Security program as being in crisis in more than a dozen speeches, statements and news conferences since the Nov. 2 election. "You may not feel it, your constituents may not be overwhelming you with letters demanding a fix now, but the crisis is now," he said last month.

The crisis, as Bush explains, is this: A decade or so from now the Social Security system will begin paying out more in benefits than it takes in payroll taxes because there will be higher percentage of older Americans than there is today. From that point, the system, if unchanged, will create a $3.7 trillion shortfall by 2075, or $10.4 trillion if calculated over eternity, that future generations will be forced to pay for. The crisis, in effect, is not fixing the problem before it spreads out of control, according to Bush.

But Bush's chief solution -- allowing younger workers to divert a portion of their 6.2 percent payroll tax into private investment accounts -- will do nothing to avert it unless it is accompanied by a reduction in future guaranteed benefits or other changes to the retirement program, according to many experts on Social Security.

Matt Yglesias (about whom I am ambivalent at best -- more on that later), notes that most young people have grown up hearing that they'll never see a dime of their SSRI payments, and suggests that liberals on college campuses write op-eds for their college papers explaining that Social Security is not in crisis, and that the Bush Campaignistration's attempt to destroy SSRI is really what will screw young people.

That's not a bad idea, but I think I have a better one: the Bush Campaignistration Crisis Drinking Game. Liberals on campus should organize Crisis Drinking Game evenings, with recorded speeches by Bush and his surrogates. Every time someone on screen says the word "crisis", everyone drinks.

It sounds funny, but I am deadly serious. I can't think of a better way to ensure that college students notice and remember the propaganda technique, rather than absorbing the message. Whaddya say, liberal students?

Comments

[djw]

The problem with your proposal can be summed up in two words: alcohol poisoning.

[Abby]

LOL, djw.

[paperwight]

What, not LOL paperwight? I'm deeply hurt. DJW has a good point though. Maybe just beer shots. Or bong hits.

[Abby]

Smiling, paperwight, smiling.

[bill]

I'm a long way past college, but I might try it as well. Let's call it, "Here's to Wall St, Bottoms Up." Cheap beer for us, Chivas for them.

Will pass on....