SOCIAL SECURITY VICTORY?

Two from Eschaton.

First, from the Stakeholder, New York Democratic Congressman Charlie Rangel goes to town on Bush's race-baiting Social Security rhetoric:

Rangel: "A New Low"

Yesterday, as part of his pitch for privatizing Social Security, President Bush stated that opponents of privatization "say certain people aren't capable of investing...It kind of sounds like to me, you know, a certain race of people living in a certain area." (USA Today)

"It is clear that in their desperation to rescue their privatization plan, the White House has sunk to a new low. How far will they go? The White House strategy seems to be to sow divisions - young and old, men and women, Black and White, North and South - to achieve their political goals. The Republicans figure if they can divide the nation, they can conquer Social Security.

Click here for the rest.

And from the Washington Post, some signs that the White House's chances for gutting Social Security don't look too good:

Senators May Block Social Security Vote

President Bush's bid to add individual accounts to Social Security faces such formidable opposition in the Senate that its supporters may be unable to bring it to a vote, according to a Washington Post survey of senators.

An overwhelming majority of Democratic senators said they will oppose, under any circumstances, Bush's plan to allow younger workers to divert a portion of their Social Security payroll taxes into individual investment accounts that would follow them into retirement. A few others said they will not support such accounts if they require substantial government borrowing. Even many Republicans say that is inevitable because the alternative involves unacceptably large cuts in benefits or tax increases to replace the diverted taxes or both.

Combined, these Democrats form a coalition large enough -- more than 41 members -- to use delaying tactics to keep the proposal from reaching a vote in the 100-member chamber.

Click here for the rest.

At last! Some good news from Washington.

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$