Ten years ago no politician would have dared say this. What does this say of the direction our country is heading?

House Ways and Means Chairman Bill Thomas (R-California) ponders downwardly adjusting Social Security benefits for women because they tend to live longer. This offensive suggestion is unfortunately given more weight when looked at from the bigger picture: namely, that the Bush administration has been quietly removing reports from its Women's Bureau Web site.

It certainly falls in line with the Bush administration modus operandi - Yes, let's hide the statistics that reveal the sharp socio-economic inequalities between men and women so we can say they don't exist, shall we?

Sadly, the real hoopla with Thomas' announcement wasn't so much his comments about reduced benefits for half this country's population, but that he predicted that partisan warfare over Social Security would render Bush's plan "a dead horse".

So, this is a pretty big statement to make two days before Bush's inaugural speech. Why did Thomas put himself out there? Did he just blow it and will we see him come forth with a public apology within the next few days? (The tragic irony is that while it is likely to expect an apology for the "dead horse" comment, if women get any backhanded apologies about his suggestion to reduce women's retirement benefits, it won't be nearly as sincere.)

What is really going on here? Are Republicans getting nervous about Bush's plan and trying to give themselves more wiggle room or could this really be a bait and switch tactic? I cannot help but wonder if Kevin Drum isn't on to something.

Could Bush really be willing to blow all that money on Social Security propaganda in a way to soften up Congress and Democrats in particular for creating his first big 'unifying', bi-partisan gesture of leaving Social Security alone but putting private accounts on top of Social Security, thereby creating huge tax-sheltered savings accounts geared towards *gasp* the rich?

Either way is a win for Bush, sadly. Either conservatives get to dismantle the one program designed to protect Americans from the grinding weight of poverty that those who approved it - who had lived through the Depression and saw firsthand just how bad it could be, or Grover Norquist gets this year's tax cut despite the fact our deficit is out of control and the Iraqi war looks more and more like Vietnam every day.

My vote for the true sign of things to come goes to the fact that while only 9 percent of voters in the nation's capital voted for President Bush, already strapped Washington D.C. gets to pay $17 million for his security costs. Your inaugural message comes through loud and clear Mr. Bush.