Media "private account" watch, Day 5

Who let the partisan attack dogs out? There's talk of private accounts all over the news world today, much to the chagrin of the White House, which prefers the less abrasive and more love inspiring "personal accounts."

Tom Raum of the Associated Press drops the phrase at least three times in his article about Bush's attempts to rally the base around his plan. And remember the outcry about Kerry/Edwards politicizing politician's family members? Bush wouldn't - oh yes, he would:

Republican sources, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said that in the private portion of the discussion, Bush invoked his twin 22-year-old daughters, Jenna and Barbara, as examples of the need to pass Social Security legislation. By the time they reach retirement age, the president was quoted as saying, the system will be bankrupt unless changes are made. According to administration estimates, Social Security will be able to pay full benefits until 2042. After that, it is projected that about 73 percent of promised benefits can be paid.

Of course, all of that is based on fairly pessimitic projections as required by Social Security, and may not happen at all. But Bush has an agenda to push.

Another AP article gives more details to Bush "Crisis of Legacy" tour plans, noting his first stop is scheduled to be in Fargo, North Dakota. Many believe this is an attempt to shake Democrats from there staunch opposition to Bush's plan. And it doesn't look like it's going to work:

[Sen. Kent] Conrad and Sen. Byron Dorgan, D-N.D., said they are happy Bush is stopping in the state but said they do not support the idea of borrowing money to pay for private accounts.

The New York Times reports on the tour with two uses of "private" and one "personal" as well as a sense of Mad Max urgency for the President. If this fails, one wonders what the President will do.

An unnamed staff writer for the Washington Post:

...[I]n remarks that got a mixed reception, Bush suggested that his proposal for partially privatizing Social Security -- to be unveiled in February or early March -- may not be as detailed as some lawmakers had hoped. Several quoted Bush as saying that he wanted to give them "a little running room."

Which also could be seen as the White House's inability to craft a bill they thought would pass, and their willingness to push of the hard work associated with it onto House and Senate Republicans. But that would be showing a bias, wouldn't it?

Also of note, Tom DeLay claims it is a "moral obligation" to mislead future generations out of Social Security. Go figure. And someone explain what kind of "cover" the President can lay down on this issue? Is it proposing a horribly risky and awful idea of reform so the House Republicans look like heroes when they propose something that is a bit more reasonable?

By the way, two references to "privatization."

Back to the AP, reporting on the Democrats press conference today expressing their opposition to the Bush plan and the objection of those who work for Social Security at being used as pawns in a political chess game:

Bush hopes to let younger workers divert a portion of their Social Security taxes into private retirement accounts that supporters hope would be more profitable than traditional government bonds because they could be invested in the stock market.

Later yesterday, Bush met privately with congressional Republicans at a retreat in West Virginia to discuss Social Security and other issues.

Uh, shouldn't that be Bush "met personally?" Just curious.

And finally, you'll be unsurprised to hear that Bob Novak is firmly behind the party, with two "personal accounts" in his latest. Nice work, Bob.