[rogue yam]

If you think there’s any hope of getting an overwhelming number of the public to back something like Social Security reform, Bush already proved that will never happen.

With GWB we found out that Social Security reform would not happen in 2005 with the GOP Congress we had at the time and with the rest of that political context.

Things are different now. We have the tea party movement, Paul Ryan and others in Congress on the case, the 2008 financial crisis, the credit downgrade, the EU sovereign debt crises, the four-year slowdown, the aging of the baby boomers coupled with chronically high unemployment, etc.

Social Security will be reformed substantially over the next decade or so because the numbers don't allow for it not to be. If we have GOP majorities in Congress and a GOP President we can reform it sooner and better.

That is to be hoped for.

[JediJones]

Things are different now. We have the tea party movement, Paul Ryan and others in Congress on the case, the 2008 financial crisis, the credit downgrade, the EU sovereign debt crises, the four-year slowdown, the aging of the baby boomers coupled with chronically high unemployment, etc.

And we have a potential presidential candidate named Mitt who said in the debates that he would not follow Newt's Social Security reform plan because "we can't afford it."

Social Security will be reformed substantially over the next decade or so because the numbers don't allow for it not to be. If we have GOP majorities in Congress and a GOP President we can reform it sooner and better.

GOPs come in many shapes, sizes and flavors. Which one will we get, the good egg or the bad apple? Note, if you think higher taxes and lower benefits is "reform," think again. Newt's plan to follow the Galveston/Chilean model is a true free market reform.