<div>On 5/1/05, Doug Henwood <<a href="mailto:dhenwood@panix.com">dhenwood@panix.com</a>> wrote:<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;"> The politics of this are very weird. Americans aren't fond of "welfare" programs, but that's what Bush is proposing to turn SS into - cutting benefits for middle & upper income people without cutting their taxes. That seems doomed from the start, no? And more broadly damaging politically, I'd think. Am I missing something? Doug </blockquote></div> Perhaps the eagerness of the Democrats to "compromise"? The Democrats are like the Mariners; no one is better at pissing away a lead. I was at the town  hall forum for my local Democratic congresscritter yesterday;  Brian Baird is what passes for a liberal Democrat these days. And he spouted the standard  Democratic line that there is no crisis, but there is a problem, and that we have to make  some hard choices. (Note:  I'm  paraphrasing - not quoting. ) I'd think the Democrats logic was very shaky if I was naive enough to believe they actually wanted to save social security. Yes the majority believes there is a "problem" but not a crisis. But that is really the only Bush lie they have bought on the  SSN issue. Given that, doesn't make more sense to show some leadership, close  up the chink in the armor, and rebut that lie? In any battle from one as formal  as a chess game, to something as rough and ready as a barroom brawl, you need to think  more than one move ahead if you want to win.  But I suspect that at least some Democrats would actually like to cut benefits - either our of a direct wish to appeal to contributors or out of some ideological "fiscal conservatism". It is not a mistake; a "compromise" is the outcome they prefer. -- Please note:  Personal  messages  should be sent to [garlpublic] followed by the [at] sign with isp of  [comcast], then [dot] and then an  extension of net