Sunday, March 13, 2005
No means no.
Another reason it makes no sense is that it buys into the essential dishonesty of the president's political argument -- namely, that we're now debating how to 'save' Social Security: He has a plan. So the Dems should have one too.
But, as we've argued repeatedly here, that's not what we're debating. As press commentary has belatedly but increasingly awakened to, what we're now debating is whether to keep Social Security or to replace it with private accounts.
I think this is dead on the money, and I think that if the Democrats can successfully frame the debate on these terms, this will be a big winner for them in 2006.
Read the whole thing.