Doug Henwood wrote:
>
> Nathan Newman wrote:
>
> >Clinton never proposed privatization. He did propose supplemental
> >individual retirement funds that would receive heavy subsidized tax credits
> >for working class folks-- a very progressive policy proposal that I was
> >quite in favor of.
>
> Washington Post - June 29, 2001
>
> Clinton Eyed Private Social Security Accounts
> Glenn Kessler, Washington Post Staff Writer
>
> President Clinton and his economic advisers spent 18 months secretly
> discussing the elements of a plan to add individual investment
> accounts to Social Security, but abandoned it when it became clear
> the president would be impeached, according to a paper by three
> former administration officials that will be presented today at a
> Harvard conference.
>
I think as far back as late in his first term or early in his second term I quoted from a WSJ editorial on a speech Clinton gave in (I believe) either N.M. or Ariz. in which he "discussed" some sort of SS "reform." The WSJ argued that he had in effect _opened_ the question (they may even have used the cliche about putting the toothpaste back in the tube) of privatization. I argued in the post that Clinton new that, and that he was in fact _intending_ some sort of gutting of social security.
And quite a few of us argued when the Monica story first began to grow that she might well have saved social security.
And every newspaper column in praise (or implicit praise) of that Senator from Minnesota gives aid and comfort to the right-wing core of the DP. The DP is the enemy, not this wing or that wing, and support for its scattered "progressives" (who may or may not be progressive) is _in practice_ support for Clinton-Gore-Nunn etc. etc. etc.
Carrol