The pulse of America
The New York Times conducted a recent survey, in collaboration with CBS News, that basically concluded that President Bush's priorities are out of step with average Americans. By conclusion, I really mean that the article attempted to stack facts and figures that may lead one to make such a conclusion, however, I have never been a big fan of polls, so I say this should all be taken with a grain of salt.
One of the major issues that was brought up was revamping Social Security, which seems to be the flagship of Bush's domestic agenda for his second term in office.
On Social Security, 51 percent said permitting individuals to invest part of their Social Security taxes in private accounts, the centerpiece of Mr. Bush's plan, was a bad idea, even as a majority said they agreed with Mr. Bush that the program would become insolvent near the middle of the century if nothing were done. The number who thought private accounts were a bad idea jumped to 69 percent if respondents were told that the private accounts would result in a reduction in guaranteed government benefits. And 45 percent said Mr. Bush's private account plan would actually weaken the economic underpinnings of the nation's retirement system.
Okay, so clearly people think something should be done about Social Security, but clearly privitization is not the answer. The article goes on to say that "almost four out of five respondents said it was the government's responsibility to assure a decent standard of living for the elderly." Yes, I agree with that, just as I agree with the fact that the economy would serve to pin down the nation's retirement system even more through privitization. If anyone read my previous post about Britain's little experiment with personal accounts, it would be clear in their minds that many people's savings would be eaten up, whether it be through hidden fees or falling equity. In short, it would require a great deal of micromangement to keep the money flowing, and I don't think our seniors really have that kind of stamina. Privitization, in my mind, is basically like taking the "security" out of Social Security. Bush is going to have to do a better job of convincing me that there are no potential cracks people's money could fall through, espcially with the economic uncertainty of the times we live in.
On the foreign policy front, there were a few key points made about the recent Iraqi elections.
In an apparent reflection of the success of the Iraq elections, 53 percent of those surveyed said that efforts to bring order to Iraq were going very or somewhat well, up from 41 percent a month ago. That is the highest rating on that score since the capture of Mr. Hussein.
Yeah, I think the success of the elections definitely made a lot of people believers in what the U.S. hopes to achieve in Iraq. Yet still, North Korea's recent coming-out-of-the-closet on its nuclear weapons seems to have Americans the most worried.
Still, 42 percent now say that Mr. Bush would have been better off trying to counter the threat of North Korea before invading Iraq, compared with 45 percent who think Mr. Bush was correct to focus first on Iraq.
On North Korea, 81 percent said that that nation does indeed now have nuclear weapons, and 7 in 10 said it poses a serious threat to the United States. Still, a majority of Americans said they opposed taking pre-emptive action against North Korea if diplomatic efforts failed - a shift from before the war in Iraq, when a majority said they would support military action if diplomatic efforts failed.
The key phrase here, which the Times kindly forgot to include in its survey, is "unilateral military action." A nuclear North Korea is not only a threat to the United States, but to the entire region. I definitely would not support going in it alone like the U.S. did with Iraq (of course, Bush would argue we had the UK and Poland with us, but whatever), but to take military action entirely off the table doesn't get us anywhere with bipolar autocrats like Kim Jong Il or the head mullahs of Iran.
So, what does this poll really tell us? Is Bush really out of touch? These two excerpts kind of sum it up.
"I don't think he's listening to the people concerning Social Security," said Beverly Workman, a West Virginia Democrat who said she voted for Mr. Bush. "I think the public wants him to leave it alone."
At the same time, there has been an increase in respondents who say that efforts to restore order in Iraq are going well, even as an overwhelming number of Americans say Mr. Bush has no clear plan for getting out of Iraq.
So I guess people think Bush is just winging it on all fronts, putting things out on the table that may never even get done like any politician. Some good things may come from it, others not so good. I say that's fair enough.
One of the major issues that was brought up was revamping Social Security, which seems to be the flagship of Bush's domestic agenda for his second term in office.
On Social Security, 51 percent said permitting individuals to invest part of their Social Security taxes in private accounts, the centerpiece of Mr. Bush's plan, was a bad idea, even as a majority said they agreed with Mr. Bush that the program would become insolvent near the middle of the century if nothing were done. The number who thought private accounts were a bad idea jumped to 69 percent if respondents were told that the private accounts would result in a reduction in guaranteed government benefits. And 45 percent said Mr. Bush's private account plan would actually weaken the economic underpinnings of the nation's retirement system.
Okay, so clearly people think something should be done about Social Security, but clearly privitization is not the answer. The article goes on to say that "almost four out of five respondents said it was the government's responsibility to assure a decent standard of living for the elderly." Yes, I agree with that, just as I agree with the fact that the economy would serve to pin down the nation's retirement system even more through privitization. If anyone read my previous post about Britain's little experiment with personal accounts, it would be clear in their minds that many people's savings would be eaten up, whether it be through hidden fees or falling equity. In short, it would require a great deal of micromangement to keep the money flowing, and I don't think our seniors really have that kind of stamina. Privitization, in my mind, is basically like taking the "security" out of Social Security. Bush is going to have to do a better job of convincing me that there are no potential cracks people's money could fall through, espcially with the economic uncertainty of the times we live in.
On the foreign policy front, there were a few key points made about the recent Iraqi elections.
In an apparent reflection of the success of the Iraq elections, 53 percent of those surveyed said that efforts to bring order to Iraq were going very or somewhat well, up from 41 percent a month ago. That is the highest rating on that score since the capture of Mr. Hussein.
Yeah, I think the success of the elections definitely made a lot of people believers in what the U.S. hopes to achieve in Iraq. Yet still, North Korea's recent coming-out-of-the-closet on its nuclear weapons seems to have Americans the most worried.
Still, 42 percent now say that Mr. Bush would have been better off trying to counter the threat of North Korea before invading Iraq, compared with 45 percent who think Mr. Bush was correct to focus first on Iraq.
On North Korea, 81 percent said that that nation does indeed now have nuclear weapons, and 7 in 10 said it poses a serious threat to the United States. Still, a majority of Americans said they opposed taking pre-emptive action against North Korea if diplomatic efforts failed - a shift from before the war in Iraq, when a majority said they would support military action if diplomatic efforts failed.
The key phrase here, which the Times kindly forgot to include in its survey, is "unilateral military action." A nuclear North Korea is not only a threat to the United States, but to the entire region. I definitely would not support going in it alone like the U.S. did with Iraq (of course, Bush would argue we had the UK and Poland with us, but whatever), but to take military action entirely off the table doesn't get us anywhere with bipolar autocrats like Kim Jong Il or the head mullahs of Iran.
So, what does this poll really tell us? Is Bush really out of touch? These two excerpts kind of sum it up.
"I don't think he's listening to the people concerning Social Security," said Beverly Workman, a West Virginia Democrat who said she voted for Mr. Bush. "I think the public wants him to leave it alone."
At the same time, there has been an increase in respondents who say that efforts to restore order in Iraq are going well, even as an overwhelming number of Americans say Mr. Bush has no clear plan for getting out of Iraq.
So I guess people think Bush is just winging it on all fronts, putting things out on the table that may never even get done like any politician. Some good things may come from it, others not so good. I say that's fair enough.
posted by Remz Pokorny @ 11:43 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home