Senator to Try New Strategy on Accounts for Retirees

[CatWoman]

WASHINGTON, April 21 - The Senate Finance Committee chairman, Charles E. Grassley, said Thursday that he would try to produce a Social Security bill with the support of Republicans alone, in an effort to jump-start a legislative effort now stymied by solid Democratic opposition.

Mr. Grassley, whose committee will play the lead role on Social Security, acknowledged that it was a risky strategy and that he would need to attract some Democratic support once the bill reached the full Senate, if not sooner. But he said, with some frustration, that he had been unable to get the Democrats on his committee to enter into negotiations unless he renounced President Bush's proposal to create private investment accounts in Social Security.

Mr. Grassley said he would not do that. As a result, he said, "I'm going to put together a Republican-only bill as a first step to getting bipartisan support because I can't lose time waiting for the Democrats to come to the table."

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/22/politics/22bush.html?ex=1271822400&en=e086725aa606644d&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss

[Beetwasher]

1. Read Josh Marshall On Grassleys Idiocy

Grassley won't even be able to get all the Repubs on the committee to go along with the abomination. He will be humiliated.

www.talkingpointsmemo.com

[acmejack]

2. Grassley is a dreamer

Some dems will suppport it. I hope not...

[Demeter]

3. Given Grassley's Track Record

I'm not worried in the slightest.

[Rose Siding]

4. He could always woo dem support with a recent example of repub grace

:sarcasm:

Democrats accused of lack of vision

House Democrats have voted with Republicans on several major bills this year, and Republicans say this indicates a lack of vision and agenda coming from Democratic leadership.

"What we're seeing is a pattern of bipartisanship, of Democrats lacking in agenda and their guys jumping over to the Republican vision of how we're running the country," said Ron Bonjean, spokesman for House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert, Illinois Republican.

"It's clear that the Democrats have no agenda and what the pattern is beginning to show is that many rank-and-file Democrats are looking to the Republican agenda," said Rep. Eric Cantor, Virginia Republican.

http://www.washtimes.com/national/20050420-095356-2733r.htm

[Toots]

7. To a degree he is right. Republicans are establishing the Agenda

It is not because Democrats have no Agenda it is because they are not allowed to have one. Democrats are not even allowed to participate in discussion concerning bills and are given literally minutes to read bills before voting on them. The Democrats main Agenda should be To Stop the Republican Agenda First you must stop the bleeding then you treat the wound.

[MrModerate]

9. Oh, horrors! Bipartisanship!!

Those wicked and feeble Dems have actually agreed with Republicans a time or two!

Complaining about bipartisanship only makes sense if you're such a deranged ideologue that the welfare of the country comes in a distant second to beating the other party.

Admittedly, there hasn't been very much in the Republican agenda that an honest person could support (and many of the Dem votes in support of dishonest programs are somewhat embarassing), but compromise -- that is, bipartisanship -- is supposed to be a cornerstone of our government.

It's like I've heard said over and over again. These stinking fucks can't GOVERN for shit. All they're good at is POLITICS.

[MaineDem]

5. The Democratic position is to negotiate ONLY after ...

... privatization is taken off the table.

We're urging the GOP to drop the privatization and THEN work to stabilize Social Security in a bipartisan way. That's what we should all be urging our GOP Senators.

[nodictators]

6. One-Party Totaltarian Rule Continues

No Repubs voted against the Bankruptcy bill. They all goose-stepped with BushCo. It just a redux of Saddam's rubber-stamp legislature.

Oh sure, Grassly wants a few turncoat Dems to join in as ornaments so fools will think it's all bi-partisan.

Bush's radical revision of Social Security is an outright ploy to DESTROY SS, not save it. They cooked the numbers with phony "ultimate values" that are self-contradictory, such as a lethargic economy with 1.9% annual growth, but a booming stock market.

Bush has repeatedly lied to the American people. He claimed in a Saturday radio address that a sucker who made $35,000/year would have a quarter million dollars in their account at retirement. Maybe, but all of the "gain" would have come from inflation, and the sucker would have actually lost money in real (inflation adjusted) terms.

Bush is a con man. He promises riches to the suckers, but refuses to tell the suckers what his real plan is.

It's all sizzle but no steak.

[grytpype]

8. Beautiful.

We have the Repugs right where we want them.

Their "plan" is going to be benefit cuts and massive new borrowing.

he said, with some frustration, that he had been unable to get the Democrats on his committee to enter into negotiations unless he renounced President Bush's proposal to create private investment accounts in Social Security.

Finally, the Dems are following a WINNING strategy. Force the Repugs to make the first proposal, while they have "private accounts" super-glued to them by the Idiot King. Perfect.