Readers know that I believe David Adesnik to be the worst OxBlogger of them all. And David knows this.

Let's review.

David has admitted several times over that he has little idea what he's talking about where Social Security is concerned. He didn't know that 46 million Americans rely on Social Security, but then he said, mysteriously, that "dependence on the government for one's security in old age is a moral hazard." In other words, Adesnik thinks that the mere existence of Social Security causes people to engage in risky behavior, but he doesn't specify what that is. Too much spending and not enough saving? As it happens, borrowing a few trillion dollars to address the cash flow problem created by the transition to private accounts doesn't exactly increase national savings, as Stephen Roach noted. So the moral hazard issue as regards savings is pretty much moot.

Then Adesnik got confused and said that he didn't want the government to limit his options. Well, guess what? He better oppose the Bush plan, then, which limits his options in a number of ways. As Matthew Yglesias says:

As cause for a moral crusade, this is silly -- on a par with mandating that, at great expense, the Internal Revenue Service allow people to get their tax forms on seven different colors of paper and then insisting that people complaining about the price hate freedom. It's a choice that's not worth anything to the choosers. When it comes to music, the beauty of choice is that tastes differ, so when we each get to do our own thing, we all wind up happier. But the outputs of all the different private accounts and, indeed, traditional Social Security are the same: monthly checks. The only thing at issue is the size of the checks.

Now, reveling in discovering an obscure quote from FDR that seems to suggest that he favored an eventual shift to some type of private accounts, David writes:

You'd think that Bush's speechwriters would've discovered this quotation while researching his State of the Union address. But I guess they figured that FDR would be the last one to provide the President with ammunition for his struggle with the Democrats.

Interestingly enough, it turns out that Evan Bayh is a Democrat. Let's compare what Bayh said to what FDR said, shall we?

FDR:

In the important field of security for our old people, it seems necessary to adopt three principles: First, noncontributory old-age pensions for those who are now too old to build up their own insurance. It is, of course, clear that for perhaps 30 years to come funds will have to be provided by the States and the Federal Government to meet these pensions. Second, compulsory contributory annuities which in time will establish a self-supporting system for those now young and for future generations. Third, voluntary contributory annuities by which individual initiative can increase the annual amounts received in old age. It is proposed that the Federal Government assume one-half of the cost of the old-age pension plan, which ought ultimately to be supplanted by self-supporting annuity plans.

Bayh:

Look, you may own your home; a lot of Americans do. I bet you have insurance. Ownership and insurance have to go hand in hand.

Social Security is the insurance. Senior citizens in our country can always rely on it to make sure they're not desperately poor in their old age.

Should we have ownership and choice in addition to that? Yes, we should. But we should never do anything to undermine that insurance. That is one of the bedrock principles of our country.

The only daylight between those two statements, as far as I can tell, is that FDR thought that down the line there would eventually have to be some kind of "self-supporting annuity plans." But as we've seen, the "self-supporting annuity plans" actually being put forward by anonymous Bush administration officials have little to do with FDR, his principles, expanded choice, or increased national savings. So I don't see how digging up this quote is supposed to mean anything.

[UPDATE: Media Matters has more on what FDR meant.]

Moreover, David seems to think it's all about speeches and winning the "struggle with Democrats." Telling. I thought it was about ensuring the solvency of the system for the long haul?

I'm interested in Adesnik's writings about El Salvador and his thoughts on democracy, about which he appears to know a fair amount.

Social Security? Not so much.

... One thing I forgot to mention. Bush isn't struggling with Democrats right now so much as he's struggling with his own recalcitrant party. See Josh Marshall for the details.