Although the headline is deceiving, Senator Kerry insinuates that President Bush will reintroduce the draft if he's re-elected.
Answering a question about the draft that had been posed at a forum with voters, Kerry said: "If George Bush (news - web sites) were to be re-elected, given the way he has gone about this war and given his avoidance of responsibility in North Korea (news - web sites) and Iran and other places, is it possible? I can't tell you."Well I can tell you, because Defense Secretary Rumsfeld specifically addressed the draft notion in April.
Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld yesterday dismissed the notion of reinstating the military draft, saying that the Pentagon, if needed, can dig deeper into Reserve and National Guard forces to relieve troops deployed in the war on terrorism.If anyone has been floating draft ideas, it's the Democrats."I don't know anyone in the executive branch of the government who believes it would be appropriate or necessary to reinstitute the draft," Mr. Rumsfeld told a Washington gathering of members of the Newspaper Association of America, the American Society of Newspaper Editors and the Associated Press.
Democrats in both chambers — Rep. Charles B. Rangel of New York and Sen. Ernest F. Hollings of South Carolina — have introduced bills calling for the reinstatement of the draft.Blah blah blah. Is it even worth dissecting the things Kerry says? It's so trivially easy to catch him fear-mongering and flip-flopping that it's to the point where I just assume that everything he says is basically the exact opposite of the truth.Mr. Rangel, who strongly opposed the Iraq war, said during the months leading up to it that it was apparent that "disproportionate numbers of the poor and members of minority groups compose the enlisted ranks of the military."
"If our great country becomes involved in an all-out war, the sacrifice must be shared," he said in December 2002, during the runup to the war to oust Saddam Hussein.
What's more, he apparently can't to simple math.
His voice scratchy and breaking from a cold, Kerry called the president's proposal to give workers partly private Social Security (news - web sites) accounts a windfall for financial companies and one that will cut benefits for senior citizens.Well, that's impossible; according to Alan Greenspan and assorted experts our social security program is doomed.
"He's driving seniors right out of the middle class," Kerry said in a battleground state rich with voters keenly watching the candidates talk about two pillars of retirement, Social Security and Medicare.
"I will never privatize Social Security, ever," Kerry said, repeating promises not to raise the retirement age or cut benefits.
Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan warned yesterday of a generational time bomb that will go off once millions of baby boommers retire and tax the Social Security and Medicare systems beyond their capacity.That particular article then echos some points I made in my long-ago post about responsibility.
Greenspan, a man who normally speaks in deliberate gobbledygook to calm markets, instead used blunt language about ``increasingly stark choices'' facing Americans on how to pay for boomers' benefits after they finish working and start retiring in huge numbers in coming years.
Experts said even the latest remarks from the Fed chairman were muted compared with the grim reality of the situation.
``It's much worse than what (Greenspan) is saying,'' said Laurence J. Kotlikoff, chairman of Boston University's economics department and co-author of the new book ``The Coming Generational Storm.''
Lawmakers better get their act together, Kotlikoff said. ``The country is already bankrupt. We can't wait 10 years to act.''
Stopping short of proposing specific ideas on how to plug looming Social Security and Medicare deficits, Greenspan did say time is running out ``to recalibrate our public programs.''
``If we delay, the adjustments could be abrupt and painful,'' Greenspan told a central bank conference in Wyoming.
Kotlikoff warned of possible generational resentment among the young - a resentment that appeared here already yesterday.Me neither. Yet another reason to avoid John Kerry.
``I'm not going to be retired for many years, and I'm giving my money to some little old crazy person,'' bemoaned Desirea Moore, 19, of Dorchester. Moore, who works for a local insurance company, said she has about $30 to $40 a week deducted for Social Security from her paycheck each week.
``I hope when we retire we get a big check too,'' she added.
``It kind of stinks for anyone who's not in that generation,'' said Tim Jacques, 36, a North Andover resident who works at a Boston financial firm. ``We're going to be paying into the system all our working years and not getting any benefit from it. I'm certainly not too happy about it.''
Update:
And a few hours later Instapundit makes the same connection. Not that I'm dissing Glenn -- I just want more attention for myself!
MW: "it's to the point where I just assume that everything he says is basically the exact opposite of the truth."
Did you ever react differently?
MW: "Yet another reason to avoid John Kerry."
Did you ever consider that there are reasons TO vote for Kerry?
Did you ever consider the candidates equally?
Mark: The evidence is just so astoundingly against Kerry that there's no point in discussing equality. I wish there were. There are plenty of positions the Democrats could take that would make me seriously consider them as an option, but as long as they refuse to take the War on Terror seriously they have no traction. Plus, specifically, John Kerry is a lying manipulator, and if he were a Republican I doubt I could hold my nose and vote for him. But then, a person such as him couldn't get the Republican nomination, so, maybe it's a moot point.
What, exactly, makes you think the Democrats don't take the WoT seriously?
Disagreeing with Bush on Iraq doesn't mean they don't take the war on terrorism seriously... nor does having a different view on how best to wage the war imply any sense of not taking it seriously.
MW: I was going to write about this earlier, but got busy. I couldn't believe my ears when I heard Kerry proclaim that he was never going to privatize social security. It sounded like a death knell.
I don't what his deal is, becuase the numbers just don't add up- It's going to run out before I'm old enough to reap any benefits.
This is yet another distinction between Bush and Kerry that keeps me solidly in the Bush camp.
Saying he's never going to privatize it doesn't mean he thinks nothing needs to be done. Clearly something DOES need to be done.
There's a part of this that you're not telling, though, and that's the part where Republicans aren't very willing to give-and-take either on the issue. Just as many Democrats won't give in to raising the retirement age or cut benefits, Republicans won't listen to any idea that DOESN'T include private SS accounts.
This issue must be solved... but it's going to take compromise from both sides of the aisle... and neither side is going to get everything it wants.
Mark: If the route isn't allowing the people the right to invest and secure their own money for the future, then what other option is there? Raising taxes?
Kerry's a typical liberal who believes he knows better what to do with my money than I do. His speeches often reflect that he doesn't agree with Bush, and that he has a better way.
The problem is, he never says what that better way is- If he wants to gain some ground with swing voters, he needs to articulate specifics. Saying he don't agree with Bush's ideas and policies isn't enough. People want to know what he does believe in.
JP: "he needs to articulate specifics. Saying he don't agree with Bush's ideas and policies isn't enough. People want to know what he does believe in."
I agree.
Well, here's the possibility - don't privatize, don't raise retirement age, don't cut benefit formulas. So what needs to be done?
Taxes will be raised.
The question is, ignoring the effect of high tax rates, will they even be able to set a rate high enough to cover the problems?
I think the first fix they'll try is means-testing. There's already something like that as Social Security benefits are subject to income tax now. But benefits =will= be cut. And as many people live 15 or so years into retirement, the full retirement age will have to increase beyond 70.
In any case, Medicare is the first one they've got to deal with. People will learn what the "there's no such thing as a free lunch" means. Social Security is straight cash, so you get a certain amount, or you don't. But Medicare involves services, which always can be rationed. And will be.