Here are two things about Bush’s Social Security privatization scheme I’ve learned reading through Alan Greenspan’s testimony in the Senate today:

1. Private accounts won’t do anything to make Social Security more financially secure.

SEN. REED: Various administration spokespersons somewhat reluctantly have admitted that the private accounts plan that has been announced will by itself alone do nothing to improve the long-term solvency of the Social Security system. Do you agree with that?

MR. GREENSPAN: I do, Senator.

2. Private accounts won’t do anything to increase national savings.

SEN. REED: Would you also agree…that the private accounts will basically leave national savings unchanged, since the government is borrowing money to give to individual citizens to invest in the market?

MR. GREENSPAN: Yes, I do.

Why, exactly, is this a good idea?

When it comes to putting the United States economy in hock to bankroll President Bush’s scheme to privatize Social Security, how much is too much?

According to Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan: “…I do say, as I said previously, that I would be very careful about very large increases in debt. But I do believe that relatively small increases are not something that would concern me…I would say over a trillion is large.”

Well, Chairman Greenspan, time to get very concerned. According to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, the president’s privatization plan would entail adding at least $2 trillion to the national debt.

A lot has been said, in the wake of the Ward Churchill controversy, about David Horowitz’s proposed “Academic Bill of Rights,” now being considered as a law in the Ohio State Senate. Horowitz says it is necessary because political bullying occurs regularly in college classrooms. Here are some examples of what he is apparently talking about, from his Academic Student Abuse Center:

“This complaint applies to the discriminating nature of grading of my English teacher…On the last one, I wrote about how family values in the books weve read aren’t good. I know the paper was pretty much great because I spell checked it and proofred it twice. I got an D- just because the professor hates families and thinks its okay to be gay.” [sic] — Ohio State, English, 2/9/05

“We were then required to watch an immoral Seinfeld episode dealing with masturbation, an exercise with little sociological value. She then gave a lecture on ‘moral relativity,’ which she defined very closely with ‘cultural relativism.’” — St. Louis University, Sociology, 2/13/05

“Talked about flags as symbols of states and argued that new Iraqi flag was not a result of a transparent and fair process…Claimed AS FACT that other Arab societies had red, green and black in their flags…” — St. Michael’s College, Human Geography, 4/30/04

Remember, these complaints would have to be heard by state governments and courts if Horowitz’s bill were passed into law.

At a White House press briefing earlier today, a reporter asked how the president can claim that he is holding an open dialogue about Social Security when his events have more or less been pro-Bush rallies. Press Secretary Scott McClellan readily disagreed with the reporter, stating, “[T]he President is reaching out to all Americans.”

But McClellan doesn’t address the recent situation of more than 40 individuals — including “a city commissioner, a liberal radio producer, a deputy Democratic campaign manager, and a number of university professors” — being blacklisted from the president’s North Dakota rally — uh, speech. And though the White House denied a connection to the list, this administration has a history of forcing people to pledge their loyalty before making it into the audience.

And of the people who are able to make their way through the door, most have a tendency to get caught up in praising the president rather than questioning him. Here are some “questions” from recent events:

In North Carolina: “I just wanted to let you know that as a young person, I think it’s very inspiring and encouraging to see how much confidence you have in my generation’s ability to make decisions. (Applause.) And I think that your plan to strengthen Social Security is just another reflection of your high level of trust and respect for the American people, and I wanted to thank you for that. (Applause.)”

In Montana: “I have one — I kind of have one question for you. Can you quote Proverbs 17:17 for me?”

And in Florida, there was this harrowing exchange:

Audience Member: First of all, I’d like to say that I’m a volunteer — one of your very loyal and dedicated volunteers in Plant City.
President Bush: Well, thank you. (Applause.)
Audience Member: And I’m very happy to have you as the President. (Applause.)
President Bush: Thank you.
Audience Member: Thank you. (Applause.)
President Bush: Okay, okay, wait a minute. (Applause.) Thank you very much. I appreciate you saying that. Now, having said that, however — (laughter.)
Audience Member: I do have a question. I’m on Social Security.
President Bush: Right.
Audience Member: And I’m disabled, and I just wondered if there’s going to an intensified program into some of the disability benefits that they have now.
President Bush: No.
Audience Member: Okay. (Laughter.) Whatever program that you put out for Social Security I’m fully behind it. You have my support.

What’s with Sen. Rick Santorum’s obsession with talking about men and dogs? This morning, he’s quoted in the New York Times as saying the president is “like a pit bull and he’s got a pair of trousers in his mouth and he’s not going to let go.” It’s a weird metaphor, even before you remember his argument against allowing gays to marry. Last year, Santorum equated homosexuality with, er, an unnatural love for your pets. He said he didn’t just oppose marriage for homosexuals, he also opposed it for “you know…man on dog, or whatever the case may be.” Note to the senator — if you don’t want to end up banned from next year’s Westminster Kennel Club show, it might be time to retire the creepy dog metaphors.

Conservatives in the Ohio State Senate are considering a bill that would prohibit public and private college professors from introducing “controversial matter” into the classroom and shift oversight of college course content to state governments and courts. The language of the bill comes from right-wing activist David Horowitz’s “Academic Bill of Rights,” which recommends states adopt rules to “restrict what university professors could say in their classrooms” and halt liberal “pollution” on campus.

Horowitz, who is the driving force behind the movement for “academic freedom” in Ohio and other states, has a distinguished history of intellectual defamation, historical inaccuracy and political bullying. He has freely compared American liberals to Islamic terrorists, slandered the Democratic Party and John Kerry for criticizing the war in Iraq and made a habit out of accusing his detractors of racism. Most recently, when African-American historian John Hope Franklin questioned Horowitz’s 2001 claim that black people benefited from slavery and owed a “debt” to white America, Horowitz responded by calling the eminent historian “a racial ideologue rather than a historian” and “almost pathological.” Horowitz has no academic credentials and routinely distorts facts — exactly the crime he accuses “liberal” professors of committing — to fit his political bias.

While we already know that Press Secretary Scott McClellan’s defense of President Bush’s commitment to faith-based initiatives was vague — “It was at the top of his list when he came into office and it remains on the top of the list as we move into the second term.” — it wasn’t particularly comforting for another reason. Labeling issues as “a top priority” or ranking them “at the top of the list,” and then neglecting them, seems to be a favorite phrase of this Administration. Now it is understandable that a President is going to be pulled in many directions but take a look at just some of the many topics that have earned the often given award of “top priority”:

Making health care more affordable and accessible. Human rights. Protection of our country and the strengthening of our economy. Tax relief and education. National Security and homeland defense. Going after Al Qaeda . The war on cancer. The health of the agriculture sector. A "fairer and simpler" tax code. The processing time of claims made by disabled veterans. Government performance. Improving benefits delivery. Preventing the spread of WMD. Job creation and security. The quality of life for America’s military personnel and their families. Public health. Prevention and investigation of child abductions. The fight against crime. A comprehensive national energy policy. The quality of military housing. The complete, verifiable, and irreversible elimination of North Korea’s nuclear weapons program. Cracking down on corporate wrongdoing and strengthening corporate accountability. Social Security. Fighting the war on AIDS, both home and in Africa. Global Poverty. Relations between the United States and Mexico. Reducing dependence on foreign energy sources. Resolve ongoing disputes with the EU, Canada, and Mexico. The Millennium Challenge Account. Protection of U.S. Government personnel assigned abroad. Medicare. The environment. Compassion (yes, compassion). (Unfortunately, the deficit had no chance of making the list.)

White House official Ari Fleischer once defended the President’s seemingly unfocused agenda by stating, “The President has many top priorities.” But a more accurate (and likely unintentional) comment on setting priorities comes from former Secretary of Homeland Security Tom Ridge, “Well, that’s a great saying — He who has 100 priorities has none.”