History, they say, is written by the winners. And as such, it can only be rewritten by them as well. Richard Overy's column in the Guardian, We must not forget how war was won sadly does the latter.

In lamenting the deaths of more than a million score of Russians, he conveniently omits the fact that Stalin refused to allow his cities to evacuate, thus condemning millions to death by starvation. He forgets to mention that the favored method of clearing minefields was Russian peasants walking abreast, Germans in front, KGB machine gunners behind.

The war in the east was the most barbaric in history, a clash of culture, race, and ideology. Need we remind Mr. Overy about instances such as Kattin, where thousands of Poles were slaughtered by the Soviets? Need we remind Mr. Overy about the same barbarism shewed German civilians that Russian civilians experienced two years earlier?

The Russian soldier displayed heroism and sacrifice, as did the entire Russian population. Yet, it was as much the blunders and mistakes by OKW, and Hitler himself, that led to the disasterous results. Had he directed Army Group Center towards Moscow in 1941, instead of letting them sit idle for two months, the war is over. Had he not split Army Group South in half, sending the Sixth Army, sans armor, to Stalingrad, while the remainder to the Caucausus, Paulus might very well have earned his baton. When the battle couldn't be won in 1942 and a withdrawal still possible, perhaps the biggest blunder of the war was made by refusing to do just that.

And had Hitler followed his staff's advice and not forced the issue at Kursk, the Russians wouldn't have had a thousand mile gap in the middle of the front to exploit. As it was, it was almost two entire years from Kursk to Berlin, the same distance traveled by the Wehrmacht in less than 6 months two years earlier. And the Russians were aided by their much sought after second front after June 1944 and two years of strategic bombing that kept most of the luftwaffe away, not to mention tons of allied war materiel.

Stalin was guilty of as many colossal blunders, however, he had the luxury of trading land for time, and in the most terrible of arithmetic, he had more bodies. And if, as the Americans truly were in the West, the Soviets were trying to liberate the east from Hitler, why would they allow the Nazis to finish the liquidiation of the Poles in 1944 before they entered Poland?

The Soviets adapted well to German tactics, however, the victories came at a price unbearable to allied armies. Where the allies would expend a million artillery rounds, the Soviets simply spilled more blood.

I will allow for differences of opinion when discussing the war in the east. Was it the winter, the irrevocable calculus of land and time, the resilience of the Rus, horrible leadership and decisions from Rastenberg, poor planning from the Generalstaffen, or that ever present and unidentifiable factor the Greeks were so fond of, fate? No matter. What I will not allow to stand is this sentence:

And in the end the peoples of eastern Europe were unquestionably better off under the new communist regimes than under German imperial domination.

Far more people were killed under the hammer and sickle than ever were killed under the swastika. There is moral equivalency only in that they were equally evil. Our greatest diploamtic blunders in our history were Yalta and Pottsdam, where we gave Stalin the very country Britain and France finally decided to go to war over.

I imagine that living comfortably in the west, protected by the greatest arsenal of freedom, now a decade and a half removed from potential nuclear abyss, some forget the hundreds of millions enslaved inside the iron curtain. "Ich ben ein Berliner" and "tear down this wall" were not just words. And lest Mr. Overy forget, not only did Eastern Europe suffer for decades, but the blight of Marxist-Leninist Soviet expansion condemn at one time almost half the world's populaiton.

Mr. Overy reminds us of the our strategic bombing campaign and the death it caused. Perhaps it seems bit excessive as we watch precision guided bombs fly into buildings, and perhaps a bit too much for our modern sensibilities as 25,000 feet under those B17's were women and children. Germany had to understand that they completely lost the war, no stab in the back, no miracle death to save them. War is hell, and that's one lesson that Germnay had never learned.

The allies came as liberators, the Soviets as conquerors. That is one fact that must never be forgotten.

I think I have finally figured out the democrats' problems. While many Americans are turned off by their drugstore cowboy populism, the problem is actaully quite simple.

It is debatable that the democrats represent more closely the majority of people's interests. Certainly, not everyone in Kansas is wealthy, but then again neither will most Kansans find themselves at home in the halls of universities or democratic party rallies, as if there were a difference.

The democrat's problem is that they might represent people in their current state, but they don't represent people's future goals. Forty to fifty years ago, it was entirely differnt story. But today, democratic policies are far more likely to keep you exactly where you're at. Concurrently, Republican policies, which might not directly benefit you today, will help you get to where you want to be in the future.

You might not beneift today from repealing the estate tax, but in 30 years, your children will. You might not benefit today from lower capital gains taxes, but in 20 years your 401k's will. You might not benefit from social security privatization today, but in 20 years you will.

In fact, you don't want to be living the same 20 years from now. And you know one thing about the democrats, they will penalize prosperity. Republicans might be "for the rich" but that's exactly where you want to be in the future.

And you know somehting else, something that the democrats think you're too stupid to understand. You know they already think you're rich. And you know you're not. But you'd like to be someday, and you don't want to be told "you have enough" by somebody who has never clipped coupons, bought generic ketchup, or driven a car more than 5 years old.

Professor Hanson asks When will the democrats start winning again? He describes with usual brilliance the fossilized and hypocritical nature of today's democratic party. There is only one thing I'd like to add, that is probably the most damning question of all? What would they have done in 1941?

It's not enough I think to ask them how they'd do post-9/11 differently, nor even to explain their failures in the 1990's? Because the problem is that they are stuck in Vietnam and we are fighting WW2. For all the advancement of German culture, Nazism was more about a return to the barbarism, tribalism and mysticism of two millenia ago than of the perfect state, rational utopia, and the new man.

Would they have given the "Arsenal of Democracy" speech in 1940? Would they have openly violated US law and our official stance of neutrality in offering direct aid to the British? Would they have proposed a draft and started conversion to a wartime economy a full year prior to our being attacked? And after the attack, would they have dedicated tehmselves to a Germany first policy, despite not being attacked by her?

Would they have called for an "exit strategy" or a "timetable"? Would Patton be disgraced and unemployed, writing his memoirs in the US, or would he have been leading the greatest militray drive in history, across France and into Germany? Would they have wilted at the resistance offered at Tarawa and Saipan? Would they have wilted at our difficulties at Kasserine and Anzio?

The problem is would they be willing to recognize evil and the threats we faced then. Once upon a time, democrats did. FDR, Truman, and Kennedy understood the price of lliberty, both its maintenance and its preservation.

In another time, another place, imagine for a moment, the president receives a wake up call on a Sunday in December, 1941. And that president is Carter, Mondale, Dukakis, Clinton, Gore, Kerry, or Dean. And imagine for a moment sixty years from that day. If you suddenly got the chills, then you know why they can't and won't win.

UPDATE:5/8/05: Welcome Powerline readers. Take a look around. Hope you like my city.

I have previously written several pieces concerning the state of our educational system. I have noted on several occasions that over half the incoming freshmen at Cal State universities have to take remedial writing classes. In my own little corner of the world, my classroom, I have integrated reading and writing throughout much of the curriculum. Presently, my school is undertaking a school-wide writing project, throughout all disciplines and grades.

Each week, a different department was to present a writing prompt for the students. The assignment was a structured 5 paragraph essay, to be graded both on content and structure. I couldn't agree more with the focus on literacy.

Some departments chose to do a common writing prompt, some left it to teacher discretion, as my department did. So, since we are studying Hitler, the rise of Nazi Germany, and the path to war, I decided to blend current events with history, by analyzing an historical essay. The essay I selected for the students to read was If the Dead Could Talk by Professor Hanson.

The essay, five paragraphs consisting of an introduction, three topic paragraphs, and a conclusion, was to analyze the article. I intended in no way for the students to agree or disagree with it, only to present it as a piece that attempts to link the past to the present.

The article has three main ideas: one, that common, i.e. modern, attitudes towards war are dangerous; two, that the enemy we face today, like the Nazis, cannot be reasoned with; three, that the only solution is to utterly defeat them. I asked the students to analyze the article, find supporting details provided by Professor Hanson, and then offer up final thoughts in the conclusion. This is standard historical prose.

Unfortunately, one parent was displeased with the assignment, and decided to contact the principal. The other issue she mentioned was that I never use the textbook. I have had this discussion with this parent a few times previously, and my reasons for not using the textbook are numerous. My principal wanted to make sure that I was providing balance and not imposing my own particular viewpoint. More importantly, he wanted to make sure I was addressing the California State standards. I assured him I was successfully doing both.

The matter is closed as far as the assignment is concerned, however, it offers opportunity to address the textbook issue. History textbooks, unlike a math or science textbook, or even a literature textbook, offer a wealth of potential for politically minded souls. No matter how many ways you present it, 3x + 2y = 9 is not going to get the students thinking about geo-politics.

If parents actually knew how pernicious the nature of their children's' history textbooks were, they'd revolt. And when you think about it, how bad can they be? Didn't Columbus sail in 1492? Didn't John I sign the Magna Carta in 1215? Oh, if you only knew.

From my current textbook, Houghton-Mifflin's "Modern World History, Pattern of Interaction":

Page 72:
Babur’s grandson was called Akbar, which means “Great One.”Akbar certainly lived up to his name by ruling India with wisdom and tolerance from 1556 to 1605.

The next section is titled A Liberal Ruler. It highlights his “greatness” which was to prove his tolerance through marrying people of different faith than his, removing the tax on non-Muslims, and through the “genius of cultural blending.”

Of his economic policies:

Akbar’s chief finance minister, Todar Mal, for example created a clever – and effective – taxation policy. He calculated the tax as a percentage of the value of of the peasants’ crops, similar to the present-day US graduated income tax. Because this tax was fair and affordable, the number of peasants who paid it increased. This payment brought in much needed money for the empire.
Akbar’s land policies had more mixed results. He gave generous land grants to his bureaucrats. After they died, however, he reclaimed their lands and distributed them as he was fit. On the positive side, this policy prevented the growth of feudal aristocracies. On the other hand, it did not encourage dedication and hard work by Mughal officials…

The next section is titled A Military Conqueror.

For all his humanity, Akbar recognized military power as the root of his strength. He believed in war for its own sake.

The next two sections deal with the flowering of culture, literature and architecture.

As Akbar extended the Mughal empire, he welcomed influences from the many cultures it included…
The arts flourished at the Mughal court…
Hindu literature also enjoyed a revival…
Akbar devoted himself to architecture too…

If I had the time, I could write an entire book about this one section. But I ask these two simple questions. What is fact, what is opinion? How is a fifteen year old student supposed to know the difference?

According to the authors, greatness is defined simply by wisdom and tolerance, and it's a title they bestow, not history. The term “liberal” is not used previously in the book, not even when discussing Rousseau, Locke, or Voltaire, nor the ideas of freedom, democracy, and humanism. Notice the placement of the word liberal juxtaposed to what made him great. While I concur that these are great ideas to promote, the use of the term liberal is meant to connotate the classical political ideas of freedom as opposed to autocracy. However, without having previously addressing this, how is a student supposed to know this?

Next, the innocuous yet effective manner they imply the US progressive tax system is both fair and effective, even “clever”. Akbar’s confiscatory land policies stifled economic growth, but on the positive side…

California state standards include no requirement to compare US economic policies with past empires. Nor does it require students to understand the concepts of fairness and effectiveness regarding US tax policy. And no standard exists on the concept of "cultural blending".

Akbar was dedicated to war and imperial expansion, yet, conquering other peoples is permissible if you adopt some of their culture and commit yourself to the arts and literature?

Page 122:

The Rise of Capitalism One aspect of the European Commercial Revolution was the growth of capitalism. Capitalism is an economic system based on private ownership and the investment of wealth for profit. No longer were governments the sole owners of great wealth. Due to overseas colonization and trade, numerous merchants had obtained great wealth. These merchants continued to invest their money in trade and overseas exploration. Profits from these investments enabled merchants and traders to reinvest even more money in other enterprises. As a result, businesses across Europe grew and flourished.
The increase in economic activity in Europe led to an overall increase in many nations’ money supply. This in turn brought on inflation, or the steady rise in the price of goods. Inflation occurs when people have more money to spend and thus demand more goods and services. Because the supply of goods is less than the demand requires, the goods become more scarce and more valuable. Prices, then, rise. At this time in Europe, the costs of many goods rose. Spain, for example, endured a crushing bout of inflation during the 1600’s, as boatloads of gold and solver from the Americas greatly increased the nation’s money supply.

Capitalism has flourished since long before the ancient Greek and Roman societies. In fact, it is the natural outgrowth of free societies. The silk road was built over two millennia ago because of merchants, trade, and capitalism. The Phoenicians, the Carthaginians, the Mesopotamians, crossed desert and sea to bring their goods to new markets. Baghdad was the international center of finance and trade three centuries before the European Commercial revolution.

It is only monarchs, autocrats, and dictators that limit the free exchange of goods and services. Market forces had been driving European economies since the early 12th century as crusaders came back with new goods and a new outlook on life. Towns had begun to spring up and become centers of trade, from Brughes in the north to Milan and Florence in the south. The Italians established a banking system that allowed small investors to pool their capital in the early 1200’s. Survivors of the plague were more than happy to be free of their feudal bonds and became the fledgling merchant class. French and British merchants traded despite the Hundred Years War.

The authors adeptly and subtly imply that capitalism leads only to inflation and increased wealth in the hands of the few. No benefits redound to the population at large.

On page 123:

Changes in European Society The economic changes that swept through much of Europe during the age of American colonization also led to changes in European society. The Commercial Revolution spurred the growth of towns and the rise of the merchant class. Merchants – because they controlled great wealth – rose in status.
The changes in European society, however, only went so far. While towns and cities grew in size, much of Europe’s population continued to live in rural areas. And although merchants and traders enjoyed a period of social mobility, a majority of Europeans remained poor. More than anything else, the Commercial Revolution increased the wealth of European nations.

Authors as diverse as Adam Smith to even Karl Marx have observed that the capitalist drove the rapid change in Europe, displacing the stagnant agricultural nobility. Even Marx argued that the capitalist had an historic, and sometimes beneficial, role, as he alone brought about industrialization.

According to the authors, all capitalism does is create inflation, consolidate wealth into the hands of the few, increase the wealth of nations, and destroy native cultures. No mention is made, for what must be obvious reasons, but the European at that time was comparatively, the freest person in the world, and he alone enjoyed the possibility of rising up from poverty to attain great wealth. This certainly did not extend to all Europeans, and certainly not those they conquered. However, this idea of personal reward was to drive the western economies and societies for centuries. It was also to spur the rapid technological growth and resulting progress towards modernity.

I have previously addressed the egregious manner they address the Great Depression. I would like to add one more section, from page 424:

In the stock market crash, billions of dollars in “paper wealth” simply vanished. People could not pay the money they owed on margin purchases. Stocks they had bought at high prices were now worthless. Within months of the crash, unemployment rates began to rise as industrial, production, prices, and wages declined. A long business slump, or depression, followed. The Great Depression, as it came to be called, touched every corner of the American economy. By 1932…

the apparent reason of the depression is the stock market crash. Oddly enough, this view is not even shared equally by history textbooks. The US History textbook claims that global depression, income gap, and the business cycle caused the US depression. Apparently, these reasons are accepted by everyone with the notable exception of actual economists. No mention is made of Federal Reserve monetary policy, farming failures and the subsequent rural bank failures, price deflation, or being tied to the gold standard, as described here, here, here, here, here, here, or here.

After reading this book, what impressions of capitalism would most fifteen and sixteen year old students take? And what would their measure of Western society be?

Some other notable historical peculiarities:

Regarding the legacy of the Greeks, the only thing they mention is the search for the truth. no mention is made of rational inquiry, criticism, morality and democracy, private property, individual rights, and most importantly, civic militarism.

The Roman legacy is the idea of a republic and a written legal code. However no mention is made whatsoever about the divinity of kings, neo-Platonism, or the great divide of Europe between Romanized and non-Romanized lands, the entirety of "the German question".

The Versailles treaty is presented as concerned with only punishing Germany, completely neglecting the second issue, stopping the spread of Soviet Bolshevism. This is certainly a non-trivial matter as just a decade and a half later, when Russia proposed an alliance to stop Nazi aggression at the League of Nations, it was the Brits who objected out of fear of communism.

Stalin's purges and brutality are covered, however, his mass murders receive two sentences out of several pages. The best the book can do is this from page 398:

Historians estimate that Stalin was responsible for the deaths of 8 million to 13 million people.

Like every other "historians estimate..." statistic, for most readers it will just pass under the radar, as one more number to memorize for a test or quiz. Yet, Hitler and the Holocaust get an entire section. Does it really matter if you killed 10-15 million Ukrainians because they resisted collectivization or would it have been more dreadful had he killed them for religious reasons? Perhaps there is a reason that the Kiev and the Orange Revolution was such a powerful event. Unlike many of us, they do have long memories.

If we want to save this great land, we need look no further than our nation's history textbooks. And that is a kerfluflle I will be more than happy to be involved in.

An underling pens a missive for Zarkawi which complains of low morale and incompetence. Turns our he wasn't referring to the American forces but the insurgents. Which is really too bad, because I'd heard the NY Times was all set to offer the guy a spot in its newsroom.

Mike Kinsley offers backhanded praise for the president's honesty at the press conference.

Above all, Bush was honest and even courageous about Social Security. Social Security is entirely about writing checks: Money goes in, money goes out. As Bush has discovered in the past few months, there are no shadows to hide in while you fiddle with it. The problem is fewer and fewer workers supporting more and more retirees, and there are only two possible solutions: Someone has to pay more in, and/or someone has to take less out.

Bush didn't go from explicitly denying this to explicitly admitting it. But he went from implicitly suggesting that his privatization scheme is a pain-free solution to implicitly endorsing a plan for serious benefit cuts. For a politician, that's an admirable difference.

So, Kinsley admits that social security is an entitlement, and that it is unsustainable. What step would that be?

Then he offers this:

So Democrats now face a choice: Are they going to be alligators on this one? Why Bush has taken this on remains a mystery. There is no short-term political advantage, and there are other real long-term problems that are more pressing. But he has done it, to his credit.

As this column has argued to the point of stupefaction, Bush's privatization ideas are a mathematical fraud. There is no way that allowing people to manage part of the money they put into the system can produce a surplus to supplement their benefits or cushion the shock of the necessary cuts. But if privatization is truly voluntary, it can't do much harm. And if that is Bush's price for being out front on a real solution to the real problem, the Democrats should let him have it.


Unless they are complete morons -- always a possibility -- the Democrats could end up in the best of all worlds. They know in their hearts that Social Security has got to change in some unpleasant way. Bush, for whatever reason, is willing to take this on and to take most of the heat. And all he wants in return is the opportunity to try something that will alienate people from the Republican Party for generations to come.

Perhaps the president took on the problem because it's called leadership. Both parties have been passing the buck for decades on social security, which has only delayed the enivtable. And why would the president? Did you not take PolySci 101? He is not going to run for office ever again.

Privatization is not a fraud, unless of course you maintain the fantasy that the government will continue to pay out the same dollar amount. The whole point of provate accounts is so that people can keep their own money, can actually pass it on to their children in stead of having the government take it. But then again, Kinsley rather thinks that all money belongs to the government, and anything you keep is the government "giving" it to you.

Democrats being morons? Yeah, there's a possibility. A large one too. But how exactly are they going to benefit when millions more Americans actually own their retirement accounts. Maybe you didn't notice the last election demographics, but people with wealth holdings, i.e. stocks, bonds, etc., voted 2-1 for Bush.

Let me get this straight: a system that augments beneifts to the lower income elderly, allows millions more to invest and earn a higher rate of return, then pass it on to their children, and will save the future generations from massive tax increases is going to help the democrats?

Nick Kristoff gets it 110% correct in The Greediest Generation.

Traditionally in America, the people most likely to be poor were the elderly. As recently as 1966, for example, 29 percent of Americans over 65 were below the poverty line, compared with only 18 percent of American children.
...
As of 2003, the share of elderly below the poverty line had fallen by two-thirds to 10 percent - representing a huge national success. Retirement in America is no longer feared as a time of destitution, but anticipated as a time of comfort and leisure.

This isn't really news. What is news is that consecutive articles in the NY Times have said this. The democrats can keep playing make believe with social security, but slowly and surely the truth is slipping out. What is saddest of all is that this should not be a battle about what is, but instead about what to do. Hopefully Mr. Kristoff can convince some of his friends of that.

The truth about social security is being exposed, and the democrats know it. In fact, the president did just this very thing in his press conference the other night. From now on, whatever happens with the president's plan, the president has reshaped the debate. And that is the truth the democrats fear the most, one which they will fight the hardest to conceal.

When social security was originally created, it was sold as a personal account system. It differed from every other program in that it was the only one with a personal identification number, so as FDR was fond of saying, it was yours and it could never be taken away.

Anyone who collects social security knows this is patently untrue. Recipients cannot earn above a certain amount of income or else their "benefits" will be reduced. Though there is an age cap, the fact remains, the government "adjusts" your benefits depending on what you earn. I do know this: no matter how much I earn after I retire, my 403b's, Roth IRA's, and CalSTRS are unaffected by any outside income I should earn.

In a master stroke of briliance, the president proposed a sliding scale of benefits based on need. In addition to forcing the democrats to play defense, they now have to somehow defend a system which is an entitlement by pretending it's not an entitlement. He has forced them to acknowledge what social security has become, not what is once was.

John Tierney has a great piece in today's NY Times called Bush as Robin Hood. He recognizes that

It's true, as Democrats love to point out, that the poverty rate among the elderly has declined from 35 percent a half-century ago to 10 percent today. But when you consider how much money is being taken out of Americans' paychecks - most workers now pay more to Social Security than to the I.R.S. - you're entitled to wonder why there are any poor widows remaining.

As a poverty-fighting program, Social Security is woefully inefficient because most of the money goes to people who aren't poor. It would take just 20 percent of what Social Security dispenses to move every elderly American out of poverty, according to June O'Neill, the former director of the Congressional Budget Office.

Social Security has an image as a progressive program because low-income workers get back bigger monthly checks, relative to their salaries, than high-income workers do. They're also more likely to get disability benefits.

But they lose out in other ways. They tend to start working and paying taxes at a relatively young age because they don't go to college, but then end up collecting benefits for fewer years because their life expectancy is shorter. They're more likely to be unmarried, making them ineligible for benefits earned by a spouse.

This sounds oddly familiar. Back in February, I wrote Social security and the great wealth transfer.

If social security has done anything for older Americans, it has made them exceedingly wealthy. Of course, not all older Americans are wealthy, and of course, there are the young wealthy. But on the whole, the last 30-40 years has seen the greatest transfer of wealth, but it's not necessarily from poor to rich, as liberals love to claim, but young to old. This transgenerational transfer has major political ramifications as we try to reform social security while others entrench themselves, steeling for a fight to the death.
...
Social security supporters have claimed that it is the most successful government program ever. Perhaps. It depends on how one measures success. If it means consolidation of wealth from the young to the old, then it most certainly has been, as it has played a part. Does this mean that the social security system is solely responsible? No. But, is has factored significantly in this.

Payroll taxes used to finance the social security system deplete the pool of funds from the young that the could be used to invest OR buy a house, the source of wealth accumulation for millions of Americans. Income taxes are heavily graduated, where the higher income earners pay the vast majority of taxes. According to the Congressional Budget Office, Effective tax rates, in 2001 the share of Income tax liabilities breaks down like this (table 2):
Fourth Quintile 14.3%
Highest Quintile 82.5%

In other words, the top 40% of all income earners pay almost 97% of all income taxes. Projected out until 2014, the situation hardly changes, where they'll pay 91%. What impact does this have? As you progress up the economic ladder, and therefore gain ability to create wealth, you are burdened with both social security AND income taxes at a confiscatory level. Thus, wealth creation is exceedingly difficult and out of reach of majority of income earners.

Thus, extenuating factors such as age, marital status, education level, and other lifestyle decisions have an even greater impact on wealth creation than they otherwise would. For public policy makers the answer should be clear. We need policies that promote wealth creation now, not promises of transfer payments later. Social security reform is going to be a difficult and politically explosive issue the next few years. Without a doubt, there are a great many entrenched interests for whom reform is a mortal threat.

Why are democrats so virulently opposing Bush on social security reform? As Mr. Tierney writes:

Democrats like to portray Mr. Bush as King George or Marie Antoinette. But on Thursday night, when he promised to improve benefits for the poor while limiting them for everyone else, he sounded more like Robin Hood, especially when he rhapsodized about poor people getting a chance to build up assets that they could pass along to their children.

It was the kind of talk you might expect to hear from a Democrat, except that Democrats don't talk about much these days except the glories of the New Deal. They know that Social Security doesn't even have the money to sustain a program that leaves millions of elderly people in poverty. But it's their system, and they're sticking to it.

First, I'd like to know what part of this agenda is "conservative"? Second, while democrats wax philosophic about the new deal, and school texts perpetuate the myth, the new deal did little alleviate the depression. Unemployment rose to near 25% and fell to almost 15% by 1935 when the early new deal simply dealt with incentives to farmers and industry, much of which was declared unconstitutional. Later, when the courts began approving his alphabet soup, so successful were the programs that unemployment rose to nearly 20%, a level it maintained until the onset of war.

I have written previously that we should just kill social security. So on the surface, I oppose the president's plan as it is simply trying to reconfigure a deeply flawed program. However, I support the transformation that is taking place, the admission of reality, that social security is financially doomed entitlement. His strategy is brilliant, both tactically and strategically. Many have doubted, and still continue to doubt, his intelligence and political acumen. Yet, once again he shows that he is truly a master at the political game.