BuzzFlash Guest Contribution

CONTRIBUTOR ARCHIVES  

Bush's Raw Deal:  Common Sense and Occam's Razor

A BUZZFLASH GUEST CONTRIBUTION
by Sherman Stein

When the Bush administration first proposed massive tax cuts it said that we had to get rid of the surplus. But a recession hit. Then it changed to a new rationale: We needed the tax cut to stimulate the economy.

Why did we invade Iraq? The administration first said it was to get rid of weapons of mass destruction. It didn't find any such weapons. Then they justified it as necessary to deny a base for terrorists. But there was no evidence that it ever was a base. So they made up a new reason: To bring freedom, liberty, and democracy to the people of Iraq, and, while they're at it, bring them to the whole world.

And now the administration is trying to privatize part of Social Security. The rationale is that the system is facing bankruptcy and that is the only way to fix it.

We laypersons are not the fools that the administration must think we are. Clearly, it does not publicize the true reasons behind its actions. Rather it wraps its actions in words meant to sell their programs while keeping their motivation secret. When we see the rationale for a program shifting, we can be sure that the real reason is not mentioned.

Take the three cases one by one, and apply Occam's Razor, that is, find the simplest explanation that makes sense.

Why cut taxes? To destroy the social programs that conservatives have hated ever since Roosevelt introduced them. This campaign even has a name, "starve the beast."

Why invade Iraq? Oil. Lots of oil, perhaps the largest reserves in the world, even larger than Saudi Arabia's. The first thing we protected during the invasion was the oil wells, not the museum. Bush and Cheney, the two oilmen who run this country, knew that there is oil in Iraq, but, oddly, never mentioned the word "oil" as they drummed up support for the invasion. The simplest explanation for that invasion rests on the missing word: "oil."

Why privatize Social Security? Stop for a moment to think about it. You don't strengthen Social Security by taking away some of its funding. Private accounts have nothing to do with saving the system. They are a separate issue. If you want to fix the system, you fix it. Then, after it's fixed, you may or may not want to introduce the notion of private accounts.

What, then, is the Occam's Razor explanation for the campaign to weaken Social Security? That conservatives have hated Social Security since its inception because it's a government program and they want minimum government involvement in our lives. In particular, they hate it because it is a successful government program. In their ideology, they promise that investments in stocks will be more rewarding because they rest on the private economy. However, as every broker will tell you, higher returns involve taking higher risks. Every mutual fund prospectus warns that past performance does not predict future returns.

What we are watching is a massive, stealthy, sustained attempt by this administration to undo the accomplishments of many administrations, motivated by a simple, consistent ideology: reduce government at home and use force to control the world's resources.

Starting with these two clear assumptions, anyone can explain the actions of our present governing junta. As Richard Clarke said, our leaders are "mean and nasty." Add this to the other two assumptions, and their agenda becomes transparent.

If you think that what these leaders say in public is the same as they say in private, then you must have believed President Johnson when he claimed that the Tonkin incident was unprovoked and President Nixon when he said he wasn't a crook.

A little more skepticism will go a long way toward rescuing our democracy.

Sherman Stein

A BUZZFLASH GUEST CONTRIBUTION