In G.O.P. Divided as Bush Views Social Security in this morning's NY Times, Richard Stevenson writes:

In addition, he is dispatching his Treasury secretary, John W. Snow, to New York to reassure Wall Street that his approach, which could involve trillions of dollars in new government borrowing, is consistent with efforts to reduce the budget deficit and improve the nation's financial condition.

You know what's sad? This is the truth.

It's TOTALLY consistent with his other efforts. There's a presentation of a scenario so worst case that it's impossible an a claim it represents the current state of affairs. There's bullshit about how borrowing billions in the next few years isn't really an increase in debt because the impossible scenario implies we might one day have to pay enough to reach the same figure by adding everything we may have paid over a 75 year time span. And every gesture has a result entirely other than the claimed effect.

One group of Republicans is pressing the administration to make the accounts as big as possible, preferably permitting the investment of all or nearly all of the 6.2 percent levy on wages that individuals contribute to Social Security. (Under all proposals, employers would continue to pay an additional 6.2 percent tax on each employee's wages up to a wage cap that this year is $90,000.)

Many of the same Republicans have also come out forcefully against a proposal to deal with Social Security's long-term financial problems by reducing the part of future retirement benefits that would come from the government.

In a word, Starve The Beast. Three words. Give me a demerit.

But the approach has been embraced by some other high-profile Republicans, who say it would be a bold move to harness the power of markets to address social and economic issues and would in the long run leave the nation in much stronger financial condition.

And I would be interested in knowing what social issue this is supposed to address. I don't even want to guess.