January 29, 2005 by s.z.

Solving the Social Security Crisis - For the Twins

From the A.P.

WHITE SULPHUR SPRINGS, W.Va. — President Bush rallied congressional Republicans on behalf of his second-term program on Friday, saying that "we know how to set an agenda and work together to achieve it.''

 [...]

Bush spoke at a luncheon GOP retreat at a time when his proposal to add private investment accounts to Social Security is coming under increasing fire, including from some Republican lawmakers present at the retreat.

[...]

Republican sources, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said that in the private portion of the discussion, Bush invoked his twin 22-year-old daughters, Jenna and Barbara, as examples of the need to pass Social Security legislation. By the time they reach retirement age, the president was quoted as saying, the system will be bankrupt unless changes are made. According to administration estimates, Social Security will be able to pay full benefits until 2042. After that, it is projected that about 73 percent of promised benefits can be paid.

And that's why we must privatize Social Security: so that in 2047 or so, Jenna and NotJenna won't be forced to live as destitute bag ladies on just 73% of the promised benefits. 

(Oh, and aren't the Bush twins 23 now?  Do you think somebody could share this fact with the A.P.?)

Anyway, all this concern about the girls' benefits assumes they someday get jobs, and work long enough to qualify for Social Security. 

And that they live until 2047 . . .

See, I've read reports that indicate that the twins aren't exactly poster girls for healthful living.  For example, the Richmond Style Weekly, which reports that Jenna is dating a local boy, adds:

Ann Gerhart, a staff writer for the Washington Post, reported last week that the Bush twins caught the eyes of many admirers during inaugural festivities. At a pre-inauguration party sponsored by the National Beer Wholesalers Association [odd that Jenna would choose THIS party to attend], Gerhart wrote, Jenna was spotted at the VIP bar ordering herself a vodka and tonic. She was watched like the celebrity she has become.

Then, Gerhart wrote, just before Stephen Baldwin approached Jenna, there was a moment of romance: “By 11 p.m. she’s back at the bar, then back to the rail, smoking and sipping, while a young man caresses her hair and her back.”

Yes, if Jenna continues to smoke, drink, party all night, and engage in wanton caressing, she might not ever need Social Security. (Which may be the plan after all . . .)

But let's learn more about that young man with the Roman hands; the NY Daily News has the dish:

When it comes to romance, Jenna Bush isn't crossing party lines.The First Twin is dating 26 year-old Bush campaign aide Henry Hager.

Hager - the guy snapped nuzzling her neck at an inaugural party - has been escorting Jenna all over Washington, including Georgetown's popular Smith's Point.

"They've been dating since August," one source told us, adding that they met through friends and became close during the campaign.

"They've definitely gotten hot and heavy," said another Bush pal.

Hager's father, John Hager, is a former lieutenant governor of Virginia and was recently appointed assistant secretary of education.

The young Hager, an Eagle Scout and graduate of Wake Forest University, worked on his father's political campaigns before pledging allegiance to Bush/Cheney '04 as an aide to Karl Rove.

The White House is sticking to its policy of not talking about the twins' personal lives, but one pal confirmed the two were an item.

"He's not really doing anything right now - he's studying for the GMAT [the test required for business-school applications]," our source said. Harvard, where President Bush earned his MBA, is on his list.

Hey, if he's "not really doing anything right now," he sounds perfect for Jenna!  And since he interned with her father's brain, Karl Rove, young Henry presumably has the requisite evil to make him acceptable to the Bush family.  Plus, his father is a Bush appointee (to the Department of Education, no less), so this sounds like a match made in heaven.

Adding to young master Hager's suitability, his father used to be a tobacco company exec, so Jenna won't get any lectures from HIM about the evils of smoking.

Actually, John H. Hager has an interesting history.  (Even more interesting than Jenna's.)  So let's talk about him for a while. 

Here's part of his official Dept. of Education bio:

Hager was elected to Virginia's second-highest office, that of lieutenant governor, in 1997, and served in that position for four years.

A business executive who started at the bottom of the career ladder, John quickly rose through the ranks of the American Tobacco Company to the position of executive vice president. After a near-fatal bout with polio, John rebuilt his life and his career. He retired in 1994 as senior vice president of Leaf and Specialty Products when the corporation was sold.

And for more details about his life, we go to the 1997 deposition he provided as part of "Plaintiffs v. the American Tobacco Company, Inc."

First, about his starting at the bottom of the career ladder . . .

Q. What was your position when you first started with the company?

A. Assistant foreman.

Later that year (1963) he was promoted to Assistant Superintendent.  In 1964 he was named Coordinator of the New Products Division. And after a stint as Assistant to the President, he became Director of Research and Development in 1970. 

So, while his definition of "bottom of the ladder" is different from mine (mine would involve working on the assembly line, or harvesting tobacco leaves, or scrubbing out toilets or something), I do agree that he "quickly rose through the ranks of the American Tobacco Company."  We learn why that may have been from this next part of the deposition:

Q. Do you have or have you had relatives who also work for American Tobacco?

A. Uh-huh.

Q. And who would they be?

A. My father, my uncle, and my grandfather.

Q. And briefly, sir, what were the positions that those gentlemen held with the company?

A. My father held a great variety of positions, ending up as executive vice president of The American Tobacco Company. My uncle held a variety of positions, ending up as vice president dash tobacco and cigarettes of The American Tobacco Company. My grandfather was general manager for a company called Fenzer Brothers, which was one of the companies amalgamated into The American Tobacco Company by Mr. Duke, and ultimately became a director of American Tobacco, but I quite frankly don't know what his titles were.

Yeah, when your father is the executive VP of the company, and your grandfather is (or was) the Director, it's amazing how much easier it is to start at the bottom and pull one's self up by one's boostraps.

Anyway, while I do admire Mr. Hager for continuing to work after being confined to a wheelchair (he contracted polio in 1973 from the vaccine), I just wish his efforts weren't on behalf of the tobacco industry.

Oh, and while Mr. Hager did retire in 1994 as a senior VP, that didn't end his association with Big Tobacco.  He worked as consultant with the Tobacco Institute from 1995 through 1996, and in January 1997 he began working as a part-time consultant in Brown and Williamson Tobacco Corporation's Government Affairs Division (he was still on their payroll as of 28 June 1997, the date of the deposition).  While he wouldn't say how much he was being paid (because it was "personal"), he did admit that it was over $10,000.  Hopefully, he quit this position after taking office as Lt. Governor later that year.

Anyway, maybe I should explain why he was being deposed.  It seems that some memoes had been leaked which indicated that American Tobacco Company had deliberately heightened the nicotine levels in some of its products.  (Of course, nicotine is what makes cigarettes addictive.)  And Mr. Hager was on the distribution list for some of the memos, since he was Director of Research and Development for several years in the 1970s. 

Although Hager said he couldn't recall seeing most of the memos presented, he did acknowledge that he wrote this one:

4/25/72

As discussed, higher nicotine at the same tar level is generally accomplished through the selection of tobaccos, and Lorillard has bought some higher nicotine tobaccos recently. Other ways would include the addition of Compound W [R&D's term for refined nicotine], a change in cigarette paper, and the use of reconstituted instead of stems (stems have a very low nicotine content). The change in Newport is similar to our work on PM menthol--increase in nicotine and menthol at the same tar. The opposite situation is Sano--lower nicotine at a given tar level.

Hager claimed that this was just "an answer to a theoretical question. How do you get higher nicotine?" 

See, the President of American Tobacco just wanted to know why certain brands of cigarettes were selling better than others, and perhaps he had wondered whether it was because of their nicotine levels ("Many times when nicotine was too high consumers didn't like it. Many times when the nicotine was too low consumers didn't like it").  But that was preference was just a function of TASTE, not how addictive the cigarettes were.

Hagen said that he wasn't aware of the company actually adding nicotine to cigarettes, except in some experimental products.  Oh, and while they may have increased nicotine levels in commercially sold products through the tobacco blends used, that was only to make them more tasty or something, and so wasn't at all evil.

At least, that is my interpretation of his responses, which are rather vague.  For instance, this is where the deposing attorney, who has asking about this issue for a couple of pages, finally puts it as simply as he can:

Q. I'll ask it very simply. Did American Tobacco ever increase nicotine levels in any commercially-sold cigarette?

A. The result of blending tobaccos or bringing out new products or natural variations in the raw materials could have resulted in an increase in nicotine level. Did we do it for that purpose? No.

Q. I've just asked whether the company raised nicotine levels in any of its commercially-sold cigarettes.

MR. O'NEILL: And he has answered your question. Move on to another one.

MR. DOUGLAS: I'm afraid he hasn't answered the question.

Q. Sir, you've just told me about motivations. I haven't asked you about motivations. I just asked a factual question.

A. Nicotine levels went up. Nicotine levels came down. Did we do it? I don't get the question.

Q. Let me ask you. Was that completely accidental?

A. I think tobacco is a variable product. Blends were generally consistent, but from time to time we developed new blends to generate better products, and we developed blends to bring out new products.

So, if American Tobacco developed a blend that contained increased levels of nicotine, that was only to generate a better product.  And NOT to increase addiction. 

Besides, tobacco ISN'T addictive . . ..

Q. I'm just going to read a few of these warning labels, sir, and ask your opinions as to whether the statement is true or not true.

The first warning label reads: "Cigarettes are addictive."

A. My opinion is that's not true.

So, see -- even if American Tobacco added more nicotine to its products, it wouldn't mean they did anything wrong. 

Although, another interesting part of the deposition is about how American Tobacco sold some "Compound W" to a pesticide company for use in bug killers -- but that doesn't mean there's any link between tobacco and health problems.  So, let's hear Hagen's next response to the warning label.

Q. The next is, "Tobacco smoke can harm your children."

A. My opinion is that can be true.

Q. Can be true.

A. That's what the statement says. "Can harm your children."

That is basically his answer for the rest of the questions about the warnings -- that smoking cigarettes CAN harm your children (or contribute to lung disease) in SOME people who were already predisposed to the problem, but there's no proof that it actually does any damage to most people.  And it isn't to blame for cancer either:

Q. "Cigarettes cause cancer"?.

A. The same exact wording applies to the last. Perhaps it can cause cancer in some people, but it certainly is not a universal type statement that I would agree to.

Q. So you disagree with the statement?

A. Yes.

Q. On that specific warning label, let me follow up by asking, is it your belief that nobody has contracted cancer of any kind from cigarette smoking?

A. I didn't say that.

Q. I'm asking.

A. No. I think epidemiological studies indicate there can be a causal association, but that there has never been a direct linkage. They've never induced whole cancer -- cancer from whole smoke in animals.

Cancer is a very complex disease. It could be genetic. It could be people -certain people are predisposed to various problems.

We're all human beings. We're a little bit more complex than these simplistic statements. I just don't think that you can -you know, we're not doctors. We're not scientists. We're not God. We're people. It's a very complex situation.

I wonder if Bush would have appointed Hager if he knew that Tobacco execs aren't God.  And I wonder how Hager's views on smoking are going to work out in a position that involves administering special educational programs for kids with disabilities, and sponsoring "research to improve the lives of individuals with disabilities of all ages."  (What if that research indicates that stopping smoking will help them to improve their lives?)

Too bad the Dept. of Education is now prohibited from hiring commentators to shill for their programs, because that means that the "smoking is a family value" meme I've seen advanced by at least a couple TownHall pundits in recent months will have to be advanced by the private sector alone.
In conclusion, if the Administration does determine that encouraging kids to take up smoking is the solution to our Social Security crisis, Mr. Hager should prove invaluable to their efforts.  And if Jenna has to make do on 73% of her promised benefits, then it's probably good that she'll have connections in the tobacco industry, because it would be sad if she had to make a choice between buying food, vodka, and cigarettes with her meager funds.

P.S.  here is my favorite Tobacco Exec statement from Secret Tobacco Document Quotes

"Some women would prefer having smaller babies."

Joseph Cullman, then Chairman of the Board of Philip Morris, Inc., on CBS "Face the Nation" on Jan 3, 1971. The interviewers asked Cullman if he was aware of a massive study [which] showed that babies of smoking mothers were had a greater incidence of low birth weight than non-smoking mothers, that smoking mothers had an increased risk of stillbirth and infant death within 28 days of birth. Cullman said he was aware of the study and its results.

5:26:23 AM