RNC trying to "reframe" privatization as "personal savings accounts"

[Carolab]

(January 21, 2005 -- 01:36 AM EDT // link // print)
As we told you earlier today, even though Karl Rove has been telling Republicans for two years to stop using the word "privatization" and to try to bully reporters
Advertisement



out of using the word, like every other Republican until about two years ago, "privatization" was always his word of choice to describe a private-accounts-based Social Security phase-out plan.

At Rove's prompting, President Bush tried to pull this trick when Washington Post reporters asked him about "privatization" during a recent sit-down interview. Unfortunately for the president, Mike Allen had found several instances where President had used the word himself as recently as last year.

Let's be frank about what this is all about. Turning Social Security into a private accounts system has always been called 'privatization'. It was the privatizers' word of choice. That is, until they did some polling in 2002 and found out that using that word made their phase-out plan very unpopular. So, not only did they decide to stop using the word themselves, which is fair enough, they decided to try to stop anyone else from using it to describe their plan.

Here's the passage from the Bush interview ...

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2005_01_16.php#004503

[tsuki]

1. These are not savings accounts, they are speculative accounts. n/t

[pnorman]

2. Here's that WP interview:

>
>
>
The Post: Will you talk to Senate Democrats about your privatization plan?

THE PRESIDENT: You mean, the personal savings accounts?

The Post: Yes, exactly. Scott has been --

THE PRESIDENT: We don't want to be editorializing, at least in the questions.

The Post: You used partial privatization yourself last year, sir.

THE PRESIDENT: Yes?

The Post: Yes, three times in one sentence. We had to figure this out, because we're in an argument with the RNC about how we should actually word this. Mike Allen, the industrious Mike Allen, found it.

THE PRESIDENT: Allen did what now?

The Post: You used partial privatization.

THE PRESIDENT: I did, personally?

The Post: Right.

THE PRESIDENT: When?

The Post: To describe it.

THE PRESIDENT: When, when was it?

The Post: Mike said it was right around the election.

THE PRESIDENT: Seriously?

The Post: It was right around the election. We'll send it over.

THE PRESIDENT: I'm surprised. Maybe I did. It's amazing what happens when you're tired. Anyway, your question was? I'm sorry for interrupting.
>
>
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A12570-2005Jan15.html

I had spotted that earlier on DU and immediately reposted it on my union BBS.Tht's where I just recopied it from. Here's something I added to that thread: (I think I found that on DU also).

pnorman

[Celeborn Skywalker]

5. WTF is that?!?!

I must have missed this when it was originally posted. The WP now talks to the RNC for how to frame issues? Liberal media my ass!!

[BrklynLiberal]

3. That is why we have to "reframe" it as DISMANTLING SOC SEC!

[Sandpiper]

4. We have to call this issue what it is: Giving Soc Sec away to Wall Street

The public needs to be made aware that the biggest beneficiaries of privatization will be the portfolio managers, not the people.

[Carolab]

6. I like the term "piratization" myself. n/t

[Radical Activist]

7. Don't we already have "personal savings accounts?"

They're called "personal savings accounts" and you can get one at any bank in America. Why do we need the government to duplicate what every bank in the nation already does? Why doesn't a Democrat point that out?

[marcologico]

8. Here's an even better word: "looting." n/t

[left is right]

9. How many steps do you think there are

between personal retirement savings account to "it's my money, I saved it and I want to use it for buying a house (or a car or use it for a world cruise...) while I am still young enough to enjoy it"?

[Virginia Dem]

10. we both do this

haven't we had multiple threads about that professor from Berkely who wrote a whole book on how WE need to reframe our phrases?

WHY do we keep worrying about these non issues

[marcologico]

16. I don't think it's a non-issue. Notice that they don't connect SS to

"personal savings accounts" and of course, the MSM will obediently follow orders, so that people will think they're getting some new health-care plan before they realize they're being swindled out of their pensions.

Hell I didn't connect them until I read this thread!

[robbedvoter]

11. TPM has been fantastic on Social security! Thanks for this.

[mrdmk]

12. Heard this on the radio the other day

Social Security "Privatization", should be called "Hump and Dump".

Here is what "Privatization" should really be called, "Corporate Welfare with a Cover Charge at Wall Streets Front Door", or is that to long?

[zulchzulu]

13. Gee, what will they call 401Ks and IRA accounts?

We need to frame the Social Security changes they want by calling them "gambling proposals".

[Catchawave]

14. More on Rove's involvement in the SS "campaign".....

NEVER MIND THE SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBERS
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A7797-2005Jan13.html
"White House allies are launching a market-research project to
figure out how to sell" privatizing Social Security, while
"Republican marketing and public-relations gurus are building teams
of consultants," reports the Washington Post. The effort, led by
Karl Rove and Ken Mehlman, "will use Bush's campaign-honed
techniques of mass repetition, never deviating from the script and
using the politics of fear to build support." Groups including
Progress for America, the National Association of Manufacturers and
the Republican Jewish Coalition are also advocating for
privatization. Progress for America's TV ads, which include images
of Franklin D. Roosevelt, have been protested by FDR's family. His
grandson wrote, "My grandfather would surely oppose the ideas now
being promoted by this administration and your organization."
SOURCE: Washington Post, January 14, 2005
For more information or to comment on this story, visit:
http://www.prwatch.org/node/3188

[KittyWampus]

15. Reframe Them As Handouts To Wallstreet, $ Managers & Corporate CEO's

[pdxmom]

17. I have a personal savings account

As a matter of fact, I have 4. My 19-year old son has already started his personal savings account. I don't want or need more. I can't understand how people are falling for this. They can already have a personal savings account AND SS. And they already aren't really telling the truth about making your own choices. My understanding is that the government will tell you what your investment choices can be. The only real difference will be that the money you invest in the market will be much less safe. I know, because I can see the balances in my personal savings accounts are a lot lower now than they were 5 years ago.

[shrike]

18. Yes

As I understand it, they will give us "an array of funds to choose from."

If it really is my money, like they say it is, I should be able to put it in the bank -- or into the ponies if I wish.

[marcologico]

21. Basically it's some mutual funds all with 2% annual "management fees" n/t

[blondeatlast]

19. Let 'em do it. Most working people have precious little to save, anyway.

I can't imagine anything more likely to backfire on them.

[marcologico]

20. That's why the idea of "saving" their payroll tax might appeal to them n/t

[sampsonblk]

22. Will our party "leaders" allow this?

Will they collaborate, or will they fight?

[marcologico]

23. Kennedy is already fighting, I'm pretty sure Kerry and Boxer will fight,

the rest might need to hear from us but I imagine they'll fight if they do.