Democrats were pining for Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan to give a rhetorical lift to their opposition to President Bush's modest Social Security personal account proposal. It was unspoken, though certainly implicit, that America's out-of-power party wouldn't mind some dismal pronouncements on the country's economy. Much to the Democrats' consternation, Greenspan was Greenspan:
"I've always supported moves to full funding in the context of a private account," Mr. Greenspan said. "We've got a problem in that the existing pay-as-you-go system is not working, and we've got to change it."... Mr. Greenspan also spoke about the economy as a whole, saying, "Economic fundamentals have steadied."
Democrats clung to what they could of the chairman's testimony: Greenspan "urged Congress to take a cautious approach and warned against moving too fast or borrowing too much money to finance the accounts," so the left's Plan B has been to translate "go slow" as "sub-tectonic-plate speed."
Not too long ago, the Democratic Party followed President Clinton's lead to modify the system...with personal accounts.
Interestingly enough, Charles Krauthammer volunteered on tonight's Special Report with Brit Hume that Greenspan's enthusiasm for personal accounts was populist, not capitalist. He noted the irony of Democrats like Melvin Watt excoriating the chairman for promoting a political position that would certainly help the Democratic Party shed its growing reputation as reactionary and obstructionist. Didn't the Robin Hood prospect appeal to Watt? No — any money returned to a private individual apparently made him "nauseous."
The Democratic Party, showing less consonance than a blindfolded, inebriated gorilla — sorry, original metaphor here. I must say: poor gorilla.
An aside: Greenspan's coyness reminds me of the answer an elderly neighbor in my parents' suburb once gave me when I asked him where he and his wife stood on a local public school levy. Taking a step back, he grinned broadly and announced, "no, we are." He paused for a moment, waiting for me to retract my jaw from an involuntary 75-degree angle, his grin widening to split his face in half. "Yes, we're not!"
MINUS POLL: I've removed an in-post link to a Rasmussen poll; I believed it was from 1999 when I added it. Not the case.