Social Security and the SOTU

I have been trying to find some reaction from the right to the latest rendition of Bush's privatization plan and have come up empty handed. Dan Drezner deferred to Jeff Jarvis who basically said "Huh?". Brad Delong has an interesting quote from the Economist [without a link]:

There is often a gap between promise and achievement in politics and nearly always one in inauguration speeches, which are supposed to be aspirational. What is unusual about Mr Bush's ambition is the way it is centred on what might be called "discretionary policies". Social Security privatisation, tax reform, the overthrow of Saddam Hussein and the "war on tyranny" are all causes Mr Bush chose to espouse. He was not forced to take them on by events, and no one would have censured him (much) had he not mounted these hobby-horses.... The discretionary element makes Mr Bush's job much harder.., his "discretionary" wish-list is not popular (most people oppose Social Security privatisation). And it is dividing his own party while uniting Democrats.

Mr Bush has already had trouble with supporters in the House of Representatives who held up a bill on intelligence reform. Now, several Republican congressmen have begun to ask pointedly why the president is in such a hurry to reform Social Security, whose solvency problems are not as bad as Medicare's. And the opposition has rallied around the cause of stopping "privatisation"...

It would appear they may be in agreement with my post below, but being smarter than I am said it a lot better.