My first Social Security Smackdown Du Jour relied on an L.A. Times article to examine the experience of several states who have experimented with private retirement accounts for State employees.

Today's Smackdown Du Jour is based on the O.C. Register's Opinion Page feature of a guest columnist on the topic of Social Security.  Eric Patterson is an Assistant Professor of Politcal Science at Vanguard University in Costa Mesa, CA

Asst. Professor Patterson's Guest Column is titled Dueling Deceptions: Neither party distinguishes itself in debate over fixing Social Security. The good professor starts off with an interesting variation of the typical RWCM "he said/she said" approach to news coverage. Instead of pretending that both sides are equally credible, Patterson posits that both sides are equally culpable of distorting the truth.

After reading this far, you might assume this is going to be a balanced look at how both sides are being less than honest about the facts of our Social Security program. Unless, that is, you knew you were reading the Opinion Page of the O.C. Register. In that case, you would know exactly what is coming after the jump.

Not surprisingly, the good Asst. Professor accuses liberals of being the prime offenders:

Right out of the gate Patterson utilizes the standard right wing propaganda technique of accusing their political opponents of being guilty of  the very crime that they are committing. Unfortunately for the good Asst. Professor's credibility, the only example of a Democrat actually saying "There is no crisis" is Sen. Reid.

Nancy Pelosi's accusation that "Bush is trying to `mislead' voters that a crisis exists and that his plan is a `rip-off'" is precisely accurate. Minority Leader Harry Reid's statements that there is no Social Security crisis and his accusation that Bush's stealth plan is "Social Security roulette" is also accurate.

I wish that Harry Reid had more company in the Democratic party in saying straight out that "there is no crisis." My complaint is that there are not more Democrats who are even more adamant about it. I haven't kept track of every statement by every Democrat, but I am not aware of great numbers of Democrats who have actually said "There is no crisis." I wish more of them had signed on to that justifiable and accurate defense of Social Security. Perhaps Bob Brigham could help me out with a list of Democrats who can actually be quoted as saying, "There is no crisis." Until then, I am going to assume that they are few and far between. I could be wrong.

Notice also how Patterson snidely blames Democrats for criticizing Bush's Social Security plan "even before they have heard a comprehensive proposal." Wouldn't a fair critique suggest that President Bush is touring the country seeking support for a non-existent program? Allow me to help Asst. Professor Patterson in his academic pursuit of truth, by suggesting that President Bush is a Snake Oil Salesman-in-Chief who is trying to bamboozle the American people by running a traveling carnival show that black lists Americans who don't agree with him.

Asst. Professor Patterson's next argument is disingenuous at best. He attempts to point out that in the past Democrats have agreed that there is a "crisis":

The "major campaign issue" for Al Gore in 2000, was that we needed a Social Security lock box to keep greedy politicians from raiding the assets of the Social Security trust fund. During the debates Republican nominee George W. Bush pledged that he would also create a lock box to protect the Social Security trust fund.

The primary accusation John Kerry made about Social Security in 2005, was that Bush and the Republican party were dedicated to cutting the benefits of seniors and they could not be trusted to protect Social Security; an accusation that Bush and the media both roundly criticized John Kerry for making up out of whole cloth.

Patterson claims that the Social Security crisis is two fold:

Amazing. There is not a long term crisis. There is not an impending or imminent crisis. The crisis occurs tomorrow and the dissembling Democrats refuse to acknowledge the seriousness of our problem. But wait a minute. Before we move on to the second level of the crisis, let's examine the first level.

(Allow me to excuse our good Asst. Professor for careless proof reading. He actually is describing his first level of our "crisis". There are numbers people and there are word people. Patterson is obviously not a numbers person.)

We don't have a lock box! What is astounding is that somehow this is both the fault and responsibility of dissembling Democrats! Not even a suggestion that the only reason this problem is a "crisis," is that President Bush violated his debate pledge to implement a Social Security lock box. Maybe I missed something. Has Bush suggested implementing a lock box? Is there anything or anybody stopping him from proposing a lock box instead of private accounts?  

Now let's turn to the second fold of Social Security's "crisis":

Social Security "will go belly up in a couple of decades! Horrors! Social Security is only solvent "for some time in the foreseeable future! Social Security will eventually go broke unless we act now!

Patterson has a specific date when the "crisis" will be upon us.

Let's excuse our good Asst. Professor for being mathematically challenged. That is a primary reason many students choose a political science major. However, he should not be excused for misleading his readers with outdated statistics. The current projected date for benefit payments exceeding revenue is 2022 and will probably be 2024 at this time next year, unless President Bush trashes our economy so badly that we have less than 1.8% economic growth. For from being a problem "in a little more than a decade", an honest debate about Social Security must proceed from the factual proposition that Social Security's unfunded liability doesn't even begin to be a potential problem for two decades and possibly three. It is a very real possibility that, even without any changes, Social Security is solvent forever.

Our mathematically challenged Asst. Professor of political science demonstrates his inability to even handle his pluses and minuses when he introduces a third problem, but labels it "the second deceit." Those numbers thingies get so confusing!

Horrors! University freshmen don't understand how Social Security functions! They are shocked! Shocked I tell you, when they find out that the Social Security payments they may or may not have ever paid, don't go into private accounts! If and when they make payments into the Social Secuirty system, they will be helping out their dead-beat grandparents!

The ignorance doesn't end there folks. Consider what the survey SAYS!

"Public officials, journalists and academics" have not explained the facts! The usual liberal suspects have defaulted on their non-existent obligation to explain the Social Security Trust Fund and the mechanics of Social Security to the American people.

Now we can add Asst. Professors of political science at Vanguard University in Costa Mesa to the list of people who have not explained the facts about how Social Security operates. Have you ever wondered why liberals are the only ones with implicit responsibility for all of society's ills? How is it that conservatives and Republicans, who have been politically ascendant for about the last twenty five years, are never held accountable for anything that ever goes wrong?

There is still a missing link to the age old conservative complaint about the source of all evil. You just knew it was coming, didn't you?

Liberal elites! Spawn of Satan liberal elites are to blame! They believe in radical wealth redistribution and therefore they lie! They rely on "outdated assumptions and massive public misperception"! Damn lying liberal elites! Americans believe in UFOs and evolution! Damn liberal elites! Many Americans still believe we discovered WMD in Iraq! Damn liberal elites! . . .  ahem . . . Sorry about that, I got carried away.

You know how it is when you're blaming liberal elites. It's a compulsive obsessive disorder. Once you start blaming liberal elites, you just can't stop. It's kind of like eating Lay's potato chips. Nobody can blame just one problem on liberal elites. In fact, I can't think of a single problem in the history of western civilization that hasn't been blamed on liberal elites by imaginative conservatives.

Have any Americans gone into their bank for a car loan secured by their Social Security account? Has anyone ever shown up at the Social Security Administration and tried to make a withdrawal? I am firmly committed to the notion that Americans are the most ignorant people on earth,  but I seriously doubt that Americans really believe they are paying their FICA payments into personal retirement accounts. It has been remarked that nobody every went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American people. I suspect it is much more likely that surveys ask Americans incompetently written and misleading questions. Maybe it's just me, but I also suspect that the results of surveys are frequently misinterpreted.

Now Patterson gets to the crux of the  Social Security "crisis".

Actually, in a word, yes. Social Security is exactly the legacy I want for future generations. I want every American to be comfortable in the safety of the most successful government program in the history of western civilization. I want all Americans to understand that, because of Social Security, they have a safe, secure, reliable income floor that will, in the vast majority of cases, will guarantee that they are not hungry and homeless in their golden years.

Alert readers will have observed that we are two thirds of the way through the Guest Editorial Column in question and our good Asst. Professor has not yet criticized a single Republican or our Fearless Leader. Since the title was "Dueling Deceptions", Patterson is surely ready to really turn up the heat on President Bush and the Republican party. That assumption is both right, and wrong. Patterson drops the other shoe:

News flash! The President has not articulated! Call out the speech therapists! The President must articulate or we are doomed!

Actually, this is the most intriguing part of Patterson's editorial. He complains that Bush and his advisors have not explained that Social Security is a moral failure. Patterson is complaining that President Bush is being disingenuous by not rejecting the philosophical premise of Social Security. Patterson is criticizing the President for not telling the American people the simple truth that he believes Social Security must be abandoned for the good of the commonwealth. President Bush must level with the American people and explain that radical changes are needed. For their own good, Americans must accept their personal responsibility and duty to care for themselves.

Am I making an unfair inferential leap in Patterson's argument, by saying that his complaint against President Bush is that Bush refuses to tell the American people that he really does want to destroy Social Security? In any event, my interpretation of Patterson's complaint against President Bush is far more charitable than Patterson's interpretation of the the philosophy that undergirds Social Security.

Well, not exactly Asst. Professor Patterson. The philosophy of Social Security is that no working American should have to worry about being homeless and destitute in their golden years. The philosophy of Social Security is that every working American is entitled to a minimal income that will allow them to live in dignity and with a modicum of self sufficiency after they can no longer work.  Social Security does not compel anybody to quit working unless it is their choice, or they are forced to quit for reasons of health or adversity.

Social Security does not repudiate personal responsibility, it enhances it. If President Bush is concerned about younger workers what the he needs to do is stop trying to dismantle Social Security and start addressing the massive budget deficits that he is leaving behind as a flaming bag of poop for future generations.  

We have finally arrived at the stirring conclusion to Patterson's tedious tirade.

If Patterson is concerned about "outright lies and paucity of debate" he should stop lying and start contributing. If we are fortunate Patterson is correct that "substantive reform" of Social Security will never occur under President Bush's watch. President Bush has conclusively demonstrated that he cannot be trusted with the future of Social Security.