It's not the kickbacks, it's the rhetoric

[mithriltabby]

On the front page this morning was Bush bets big on his plan for retirees: President initiates 60-day effort to win Social Security allies. The private account thing had looked moribund, but apparently they’re desperate to implement this financial fiasco. FactCheck.org point out that this isn’t about a kickback to Wall Street ([update 19:52] though the Campaign for America’s Future disputes FactCheck.org’s analysis). The actual reason for doing this, in my opinion, is to make it possible to argue against regulating businesses because it would be bad for Grandma’s retirement savings. Mercury in your fish? Pollution in your air? Money sent to oil-producing nations funding terrorists? Can’t regulate that! That’d be bad for the stock market! And in our short-sighted society, not enough people are going to consider the long-term effects of these things on their eventual retirement savings. Global warming is going to be an unmitigated financial disaster if we get as far as rising seas and desertification.

Comments

[rhylar.livejournal.com]

Er, is factcheck.org asserting that the reason is the rhetoric? The article implied to me that they were holding no position on the actual issue.

I agree that the motive of "rhetorical justification for Bad Stuff(TM)" appears to match bush & Co's actions, but unless you've read something I haven't, I don't agree that factcheck is making that assertion.

[mithriltabby]

I’m making the assertion, not FactCheck, but I can see how that semicolon could be confusing. I’ll tweak it...

[rhylar.livejournal.com]

Overly-literal man thanks you.