A little laundry list of things:

1. “It’s now safe to return to the bars of Denver.” That sounds suspiciously like a call for a Rocky Mountain Blogger Bash. To take place on February 18. At an as yet undecided location.
   
   Or am I reading a little too much into that? Either way, this might be a good time to start RSVPing.
2. The State of the Union address? A decent speech very well delivered with a few really punchy lines about things I like (line item veto and a pretty tough line directed at Hamas), a few oblique references to things I don’t (general opposition to gay marriage and, it would seem, more than enough spending increases to counter his proposed spending cuts), and a new line of attack on entitlement reform that just might have reinvigorated me for the fight. SOTU addresses aren’t meant to be much more than broad strokes, so this worked well within that context.
3. The Democrat’s response was even less convincing although delivered as well as any response in recent history. Which is clearing a mighty low hurdle, I have to admit.
4. Flipping through the cable stations after the speech, I was amused to find Cooper Anderson talking to Arianna Huffington and Andrew Sullivan. A big, bold graphic proclaimed “BLOGGERS REACT” (although it could have been “REACTION"--can’t remember). So, take one foaming at the mouth hard left blogger and one left-leaning (except for his moments of inconsistent hawkishness) writer with a serious and severe dislike of Bush, and there’s your blogger response to the SOTU address. You know: because it’s balanced that way. When Anderson asked if anyone would remember this speech in two weeks, it was utterly hilarious to see two people with such obvious axes to grind stumble over themselves to tell us all just how poor the speech was. And some news execs wonder why the public believes that the news is delivered with a leftist bias.
5. Tonight, while working on a couple of projects, I’ll be watching Clint Eastwood’s The Outlaw Josey Wales. Good stuff. Gritty, dirty, brutal, bloody, and dark.
6. Cindy Sheehan is afforded an opportunity to act with dignity and self-restraint; instead she martyrs herself at the altar of her self-obsessed attack on US policy. Without asking her to tone down her rhetoric, I would just note that as soon as the speech was over, she would have had ample opportunity and ample media interest to deliver her own, personal rebuttal. Instead she chose to make an ass out of herself; all it would have taken was one hour of realizing that the spotlight wasn’t going to be on her. The fringe will glory in recounting her oppression; the rest of the country will shrug and wonder why she couldn’t be bothered to act like a grown-up for one evening.
7. For a good chunk of 2005, the left was gleefully looking forward to a Republican self-immolation. And they sort of got their wish. For the GOP, 2005 wasn’t precisely a banner year. Between rising energy costs, a start-stop stock market that helps to define public opinion of the economy, both good and bad news in the war on terror, corruptions scandals, and a President who couldn’t pull off the most important parts of his own agenda, there has been an opportunity for the Democrats to make headway. Instead, the Democrats have whined their way into being liked even less than Republicans and their activist base--the true believers in the divinity of Kos, for example--are threatening to splinter off since not all of the Democrats were willing to go to war over Alito.
   
   Amazingly, after such a rough year for the GOP, it’s the Democrats who look like they’re on the run, not the Republicans. Amazing.
8. Though she doesn’t manage to show even a drop of class or understanding of proper context for her protest, I still don’t think that Sheehan should have been arrested.
9. Madrugada’s The Deep End. That’s an album all y’all rock fans should own. The best CD you’ve probably never heard of from a band that I’m really starting to love.
10. What I really don’t get is the Democrat’s backslapping ovation on their own obstructionist tendencies in reference to Social Security reform. Here’s the fact: Social Security (and all of our big, scary entitlement programs) are a serious growing threat to the long-term well being of our country. There should be no celebrating the fact that we couldn’t find the right solution to the problem, there should be a renewed interest in finding the right solution and a disappointment that we couldn’t create the right framework for attacking the problem. Seriously, folks, our growing entitlement spending is as big a problem (and, arguably, it qualifies as a national security issue) as radical Islamic terrorists. It doesn’t have the immediate sense of threat, I admit, but the problem grows more and more difficult to handle with each passing year.
    
    Unchecked, the bill that comes due over the next few decades could bring this country to its knees more surely than another terrorist attack of 9/11 proportions. It could make us into a younger version of Germany or France and reduce us to standing on the sidelines as even younger, more vigorous economies and political powers shape the future of the globe. Unemployment will rise along with inflation while our political influence plummets. Now is the time to find solutions.
    
    So, yeah, that celebration of failure is a little disconcerting.

I just spent the last few minutes of my life watching Rock The Vote’s infomercial for higher taxes and resistance to Social Security changes. I am stunned by the one-sided, head in the sand, misleading little bit of propaganda.

In case I don’t have the opportunity to put together an extensive response later tonight, I did want to make sure that everyone had a chance to see this thing and understand that the opposition to Social Security reform isn’t based in anything rational. It’s based in ignorance (no, there really isn’t a problem--honest) and a stunning selfishness (not only is there no problem, but there will always be enough new workers to make sure that we all get paid even more than current retirees).

Sheer idiocy.

I was going to blast Krugman’s latest bit of imbecilic analysis. As an aside, that he continues to be paid for his opinions--so regularly wrong, so blatantly partisan--is one of life’s most irritating mysteries. Anyhow, I was going to rip his article apart; while the President’s “plan” (I still consider it a bit much to call the rough outline that we’ve been given a “plan") isn’t above criticism, Krugman’s critique is a confused mess of a thing filled with inconsistencies and fabrications. It seemed a pretty good target of opportunity.

Julian Sanchez beat me to the punch, though, and with style. Sanchez’s initial article is well worth reading, too.

Update: For an alternate view, feel free to read the Democrats.org take on Krugman’s screed.

President Bush’s words on Social Security last night worked for me in the sense that I think he’s heading in the right direction. Of course, I don’t think he heads quite far enough, but it’s a good start.

The acknowledgement that the system needs to be means tested was surprising and gratifying, but didn’t go far enough. Social Security, outside of any private accounts that the government may or may not give us, is a welfare program, and it should be treated accordingly. Means testing for a welfare program should exclude anyone who is truly wealthy; there is a principle of fairness involved that makes me uncomfortable with this since even the wealthy have been asked to pay into a “retirement program.” The truth is, though, that the system needs to be modified to reflect the reality: there is no reserve of money to pay retirement benefits and any pay-go system is in reality a welfare program meant to save the least of us from impoverishment in old age.

The Donald Trumps of the world don’t need the monthly government handout that takes the form of a Social Security.

To move to that kind of a system, though, the government must provide private accounts--the portion of your taxes that you or you heirs are actually entitled to, that requires no means testing, and that funnels wealth from one generation to the next.

My biggest curiosity with the President’s proposal last night--short on specifics as speeches must be, it’s hard to consider it a full proposal--are about the numbers involved in keeping the promises that he makes. Everyone maintains at least their current level of benefits (although the indexing for increases is tied to inflation to slow the growth of payments) and the closer you get to the bottom of the economic food chain, the more of a bump you get in payouts. I’d like to see the numbers to back-up the plan.

Before you head over to Michelle Malkin’s site (the link is at the bottom of the post) to see how the left is misrepresenting what the President proposed last night, you might want to acquaint yourself with this bit of wisdom:

The principle of full reserves, indispensable to private insurance, is thoroughly inapplicable to social insurance because governmental insurance programs can never escape being on a “pay as you go” basis. Belief that the maintenance of full reserves will lighten the future costs is utterly without foundation. For while reserves in private insurance are assets because they represent investments in government bonds, private factories, stores, buildings and farms, governmental reserves invested in its own securities are liabilities. Whereas a private insurance company draws interest outside its own policy-holders which supplements its income, the government merely spends the funds as fast as they come and in return deposits only its own IOU notes. Even the interest it sets aside to the reserve account on its ledger consists merely of additional IOU notes.

That brilliant explanation of the futility of describing the Social Security collection as a lock box or as retirement insurance hasn’t lost its edge since the day it was published in January of 1939. Abraham Epstein wrote it for The New Republic (leave a comment with a request and I’ll be happy to forward the PDF) suggesting some of the changes that President Bush was pushing last night.

Fixing Social Security shouldn’t be a partisan issue; it should be a frank discussion about the shortfalls of the current system, a realization of what we can reasonably expect from the system, and then finding a series of solutions that protect current and soon-to-be retirees. The system is broken and has been from its inception; it was and is a flawed design.

Now, head over to Mrs. Malkin’s place to see how people like Josh Marshall and Atrios are fighting the fight against Social Security reform and against the long term economic health of the United States.

I know the answer to this one:

Why is it acceptable for state employees to be able to invest all of their mandated retirement savings - amounting to 8 percent of salary from employees and 10.15 percent from the state - into accounts similar to what Bush wants to make available on a much more restricted scale for young workers across the nation? 
...
By the way, several hundred state employees - including lawmakers, top elected officials and some of their staff - have since the late 1990s enjoyed the privilege of choosing between a traditional pension and privately directed accounts. 

Of the 457 officials currently eligible for the pension choice, 221 have opted for self-directed accounts. 

Perhaps critics of Bush’s plan will stop their carping long enough to tell us why state workers can be trusted to make such decisions but the rest of us can’t.

The answer, of course, is that the rest of us are stoopider than state employees.

I mean, it’s obvious, really.