Webpage



In Bush's State of the Union address, he mentioned personal accounts seven times but private accounts zero times, which is interesting because only a few months ago he was using both terms interchangeably. But fear not, this was no mistake. The Republicans tested the phrase private accounts and found public support was much lower than when the same, exact, identical concept was called personal accounts. (Personally, I like caring accounts, but they didn't ask me.)

So the White House and its paid spin doctors, many of whom play journalists on TV, have taken to the airwaves to push the phrase personal accounts and chastise anyone in the media who employs the banished words to characterize ther Administration's Social Security agenda. Proof, if more was needed, that language is power and debates are won or lost based on definitions.

But here is the really funny thing about the personal/private accounts debate. Not only are they not personal accounts, they're not private accounts either. They are in fact US government loans. (Bear with me now, because this will only hurt for a moment.) You see, your payroll taxes will still be used to cover the benefits of current retirees, but under Bush's scheme the government will place a certain "diverted" amount into an account in your name. It sounds like a personal retirement account, but it's not. It's a loan. Because if your account does really well (above 3 percent), when you retire the government will deduct the money it lent you (plus 3 percent interest) from your monthly Social Security check leaving you with almost the same amount you would have received under the current system. If your account does really poorly (below 3 percent), you are out of luck. According to Congressional Budget Office, the expected average return will be 3.3 percent, so the net gain will be zero.

But wait, it gets better. These personal accounts aren't exactly US government loans either, because our government under the fiscal stewardship of George W. Bush no longer is running a surplus and therefore does not have the $4 trillion or so needed to cover the transition costs, and Bush refuses to raise taxes on his base (BUSH'S BASE, n. the wealthy).

So our government will have to borrow that cash. And if the last three years are any guide, our largest single loan officer will likely be the Central Bank of China. And who runs China's Central Bank, China, and the Chinese people with an iron fist? Why, it's our old friends, the democracy-loving, freedom-marching Chinese Communist Party. So Bush's personal retirement accounts=private retirement accounts=US government loans=US government borrowing=Chinese government lending=Chinese Communist Party loans.

Or as we like to say in Republican Dictionary land:

PERSONAL RETIREMENT ACCOUNTS, n. Chinese Communist Party loans.

We've had a grassroots groundswell of submissions from our readers after soliciting ideas for the Republican Dictionary project, which first debuted in this space last November.

Bush's "ownership society" was a big hit, "God" made a return, and Justin Rezzonico delivered the best definition of "Fox News" yet. I've included a sampling of the latest batch below. Please keep them coming in. (Click here to submit your ideas.) We are going to be collecting our favorites and publishing them as a book in the next few months.

ACCOUNTABILITY, n. Buck? What buck? (Martin Richard, Belgrade, MT)

BIPARTISANSHIP, adj. When Democrats compromise. (Justin Rezzonico, Keene, NH)

CHECKS & BALANCES, pl. n. An antiquated concept of the Founding Fathers that impedes autocratic efficiency; see also REFORM. (Robert B. Fuld, Unionville, CT)

FOX NEWS, n. Faux news. (Justin Rezzonico, Keena, NH)

GOD, n. Senior presidential advisor. (Martin Richard, Belgrade, MT)

NONPARTISAN JUDICIAL NOMINEE, n. An active member of the Federalist Society. (Mark Hatch-Miller, Brooklyn, NY)

OWNERSHIP SOCIETY, n. 1) A society where you're on your own. (John Read, Ownings Mills, MD); 2) A society where one-half of society owns the other half. (Anne Galvan Klousia, Corvallis, OR); 3) The euphemism used by robber barons and their political lackeys to promote or justify the extreme concentration of wealth into the hands of a powerful few. Synonyms: PLUTOCRACY, CORPORATE FEUDALISM. (Ken Stump, Seattle, WA)

SOCIAL SECURITY, n. Broker security. (Bruce Clendenin, Dallas, TX)

SPREADING PEACE, v. Preemptive war. (Bruce Hawkins, Silver Springs, MD)

STAY THE COURSE, v. To relentlessly pursue a disastrous policy regardless of how far conditions deteriorate. Antonym: "To cut and run." (Aja Starke, New York, NY)

TORTURER, n. 1) White House Counsel. 2) Attorney General. (Martin Richard, Belgrade, MT)

Great post and welcome aboard...


doc

Good article, thanks Patriarch.

To POAC!
~~~~~~~~
Link inside your link...the wonderful Molly Ivins.


Mon Apr 25 2005


Columns
Molly Ivins

"Private accounts" versus "personal accounts"
January 27, 2005

AUSTIN, Texas -- I wouldn't say it's the most earth-shaking issue around, but I'm fascinated by this fight the administration is picking with the media over "private accounts" versus "personal accounts."

Here's the state of play: Everybody went along in cheerful harmony describing the president's Social Security plan as "partial privatization," since it would allow younger workers to put a third or more of their payroll taxes into private accounts. President Bush called them "private accounts," everyone in the administration called them "private accounts," and Republicans, Democrats and the media all called them "private accounts."

Then, one day, some focus group showed that people, particularly older people, react negatively to any connection between Social Security and the word private. For some reason, people like the sound of "personal accounts" better than they do "private accounts."

So the Republicans, with their fabulous ability to march in lockstep, all about-faced and started referring to the privatization of Social Security as "personal accounts." The Republicans in Congress, the president, the administration and all its media supporters, both paid and unpaid, now insist on referring to the partial privatization plan as "setting up personal accounts." This is the new political correctness.

Rather than the old liberal habit of creating linguistically awkward phrases to avoid hurting people's feelings -- such as African-American rather than Negro or colored people, or special-needs children rather than retarded -- this is twisting language for purely political purposes.

Liberals used to amuse themselves by making up absurd examples of our linguistic tic, such as "differently abled, heightwise," instead of "short." Then John Leo and other right-wing commentators decided political correctness, rather than an attempt at verbal good manners, was a turrible, turrible menace to freedom of speech.

Since I live in a state where the words "spic" and "nigger" are still used by a substantial minority, I never paid much attention to them, but many on the right found it a useful tool to beat liberals over the head with.

Meanwhile, Karl Rove, Frank Luntz and many other smart political operatives were perfecting the art of changing language for political reasons. Do people perceive most conservatives as mean? Then run on the slogan "compassionate conservative." It has no meaning, but it sounds better. People don't think the government should be involved in religion? Call it "faith-based policy." People are against more air pollution? Then call it "the Clear Skies Initiative."

Corrupting language for political purposes, as Mr. Orwell noted nearly 60 years ago, has hideous consequences. What is interesting about this little, apparently unimportant word shift for political advantage is how the Republicans are using it to "work the refs," the media.

Luntz himself did a brilliant job of this on Air America.

Asked: "Do you think it's fair for Democrats or reporters or anybody else to use the words privatization and private accounts to describe the president's policy?"
Luntz: "I think it is fair for the Democrats to do so."
"Why not the press?"
"Because it's not -- the press is making a pejorative statement."
"But wait, it's the phrase that the president himself uses over and over again. ..."
"Used it."
"OK, so if as long as he stops using it, from that point on -- but I'm being serious about this -- at the point at which he no longer uses the word, reporters have to start using a different verbiage, shall we say?"
"It's one of the reasons the American people don't trust the media. If the media wants to engage in a debate, let it say so. Let them come on the shows as they do on Sundays, and let them state a point of view and people know that they're not getting the journalistic report, their getting the opinion of the left wing or the right wing because there are journalists from both sides."

You see the beauty of it? If we continue to call private accounts private accounts, then we, the media, are taking sides and the right can once more trot out their hoary shibboleth about "the liberal media." Use our language, or we'll accuse you of bias again. If the president no longer says it, no one else can, either. Under Nixon, they used to say, "That statement is no longer operative."

Rove is famous for never letting his clients get "off-message." Repetition, repetition, repetition, never deviate from the script, and in no time flat, we'll all be calling them personal accounts.

You won't catch me on the wrong side of this argument. I know they're making a list and checking it twice. If I'm not with them, I'm against them. Taking inspiration from Prince, I shall refer to them as "the accounts formerly known as private."

Although it's a hell of a thing to get a bunch of right-wing Republicans claiming that the word "private" is pejorative. Don't they usually think the word "public" is?

Excerpt from Bush's speech on Social Security in Florida on Feb. 5, 2005: