Privatization Never Works (Except In Fundraising)

News flash: Dog bites man! Ted Kennedy is a lush! Britney Speares makes Paris Hilton look like Phyllis Schlafley! Hillary Clinton doesn't believe in privatization - and cites the worst possible application:

"[Social Security] is the most successful domestic program in the history of the United States," Clinton said to applause from seniors gathered in Washington to push their policy agenda.

Yeah, Social Security is successful, in the sense that it hasn't collapsed yet and taken the government and the American economy down with it. That's scheduled to begin in 2017 or so, which would conveniently fall the year after Mrs. Clinton left office after the presumed two terms (assuming she ever relinquished power at all). The subsequent fiscal calamity would fall in the lap of her successor, all the moreso if that successor were a Republican, guaranteeing whoever that would be would only get one term. By that time Chelsea Clinton would be old enough to run, and La Clinton Nostra would drop all pretense of "democracy" and seize power permanently, a la Hugo Chavez' Venezuela.

But I'm getting ahead of myself.

"When I'm president, privatization is off the table because it's not the answer to anything."

It's all in your choice of words. Substitute "ownership" for "privatization" and....well, no, the Gray Lobby would never buy into any changes to Social Security because they're the ones collecting it. We younger folk, on the other hand, who know full well we'll never see one thin dime of all the thousands and thousands of smackers we've individually pumped into that ponzi scheme, on the other hand, are a much more receptive audience, as the White House's half-hearted attempt to sell the "ownership society" a couple of years back proved.

It'd be fascinating to see how Medusa would approach this topic with younger voters. But then she'll never do that, and we all know why.

She also said she does not support cutting benefits or increasing the retirement age. Seniors can begin collecting partial benefits at age 62, with full benefits available at age 67 for those born in 1960 or later. Clinton said instead she will protect the program through fiscal responsibility and criticized President Bush's leadership on the issue.

Notice Hillary's gaping omission? She neglected to mention what her stance is on raising taxes to try and plug this $6.8 trillion hole, other than the less-cryptic-than-it-looks reference to "fiscal responsibility". Which is roughly akin to if I went out, got myself five additional credit cards (actually I wouldn't have to seek them out, as I get solicitiations sent to me all the time), charged them all to the limit, then went to my boss and demanded a huge raise. Care to guess what he would say if I then justified that demand on the grounds of "fiscal responsibility"?

Just remember that the same woman that claims she'll protect an actuarially doomed entitlement program through "fiscal responsibility" also, under the best possible interpretation, took hundreds of thousands of dollars in campaign contributions from thieving grifters like Norman Hsu without vetting them in the slightest.

Speaking of whom, you'll never guess where he is now - and in that you'll have a lot of uniformed company:

California businessman Norman Hsu, a former New York apparel executive and major contributor to Democratic candidates and causes, failed to appear for a bail reduction hearing Wednesday, leading to speculation that he again is a fugitive from the law, FOX News has learned.

Hsu's attorneys say they do not know his whereabouts, and that their client did not surrender his passport.

That's right, ladies and gentlemen, the same Norman Hsu that skipped bail on theft charges sixteen years ago was released on bail again. Which means he's probably in the air right now winging his way westward, never to return to our shores again. Or until Hillary's inauguration, whichever comes first.

Want to see a howler of a circle-closer? The New York Times (natch) believes that "privatization is not the answer" to campaign fundraising, either, and argues today that it should be nationalized as well.

And of course, a Rodham administration and entrenched Donk congressional majority wouldn't THINK of not being evenhanded in how much campaign cash it allowed Republicans to have, right?

How much do you want to bet Norman Hsu wouldn't end up heading the Federal Election Commission?