The Pansy Imperative.

Is there any particular reason we have two political parties? It seems to have no practical effect.

My Way News (via WND) makes me want to slam some doors:

With the acquiescence of their leaders, key House Republicans are drafting Social Security legislation stripped of President Bush's proposed personal accounts financed with payroll taxes and lacking provisions aimed at assuring long-term solvency.

Instead, according to officials familiar with the details, the measure showcases a promise, designed to reassure seniors, that Social Security surplus funds will be held inviolate, available only to create individual accounts that differ sharply from Bush's approach.

Under current law, any Social Security payroll tax money not used to finance monthly benefits is in effect lent by Social Security to the Treasury, which uses it to finance other government programs. Government actuaries say the surplus is expected to vanish in 2017 when benefit payments exceed payroll taxes collected.

In addition, the GOP bill "doesn't deal with solvency," according to another official, indicating it would avoid the difficult choices of curbs on benefits, higher taxes or changes in the retirement age needed to implement the president's call for long-term financial stability.

The officials who discussed the measure Tuesday did so on condition of anonymity, saying they were barred from disclosing details until a formal release Wednesday.

Four members of the House Ways and Means Committee arranged for an early afternoon news conference to discuss the measure. Rep. Bill Thomas, R-Calif., chairman of the panel, was not scheduled to join the others, Reps. Jim McCrery of Louisiana, Sam Johnson of Texas, Clay Shaw or Florida and Paul Ryan of Wisconsin.

But Thomas was intimately involved in crafting the bill, and he and McCrery met privately on Tuesday with Speaker Dennis Hastert and other members of the leadership.