> Democrats are better at big "structural reforms" like the
> "Welfare Reform" than Republicans, since the latter have
> a much less ability to manufacture consent among unions,
> liberal NGOs, and the like -- and the next targets will be
> Social Security and Medicare
Meanwhile, back in the real world, Clinton fought efforts to privatize Social Security. Robin Blackburn in "Banking on Death" argues that Clinton fought as hard as he did because he wanted to shore up his base in the midst of the impeachment fight. But nevertheless, that was reality.
Also in the real world, it is Bush who is talking about partial privatization schemes for Social Security, and it is Bush who is planning on turning Medicaid into a block-grant program. There's an easy explanation for why the Democrats are more quick to defend Social Security than they were AFDC: Social Security is universal rather than means-tested. In the case of Medicare and even Medicaid, there are also other people who get paid (hospitals, etc.), so that they're economically important programs with constituencies that include not only poor people but some elite elements as well, which makes it easier and more rewarding for the Democrats to defend them. The Republicans attack these programs regardless. That is the difference, and it means something.
Yoshie is essentially making the "worse the better" argument here, and offering little in the way of evidence. Another way of putting it is to say that she is talking out of her ass.
- - - - - John Lacny
People of the US, unite and defeat the Bush regime and all its running dogs!