« Subvert The Dominant Link Hierarchy! | Main | Best Of The Zeros II »
Nelson Amendment
Well, Senator, was it steep benefit cuts you voted for on March 15, 2005, or was it the massive new debt that appealed so much to you? More, please. I want to see ads with granny looking for food in the trashcan while junior slaves to pay off the rich, laughing bond traders.
UPDATE: Seriously, what were the Republicans thinking here? Why not abstain? Were they really so afraid of letting a "sense of the Senate" resolution pass? Do they not realize that this exact same thing happened to them in 1982? Did anybody make any sort of legislative strategy whatsoever for surviving this fight? Who goes on the record as, in the abstract, supporting steep cuts in benefits and massive new debt? Is Lindsay Graham the only member of the caucus with a functioning brain?
March 15, 2005 | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
https://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8345160fd69e200d83458111169e2
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Nelson Amendment:
» Matthew Yglesias: Nelson Amendment from Poor Richard's Anorak
Link: Matthew Yglesias: Nelson Amendment. Nelson Amendment Well, Senator, was it steep benefit cuts you voted for on March 15, 2005, or was it the massive new debt that appealed so much to you? More, please. I want to see ads with granny looking for fo... [Read More]
Tracked on Mar 15, 2005 10:04:29 PM
» A Little Honesty from Perpwalk
North Carolina's senators -- Richard Burr and Elizabeth Dole -- both voted "nay" on an amendment "[t]o express the sense of the Senate that Congress should reject any Social Security plan that requires deep benefit cuts or a massive increase... [Read More]
Tracked on Mar 16, 2005 2:23:55 AM
» Deep benefit cuts? Who cares-- AMPUTATE! from Exiled from the Underworld
Senator Bill Nelson's (D-FL) proposed amendment to the appropriations resolution regarding Social Security failed to pass yesterday. The vote was divided 50 up/50 down, with Collins (R-ME),DeWine (R-OH), Graham (R-SC), Jeffords (I-VT), Snowe (R-ME), ... [Read More]
Tracked on Mar 16, 2005 4:52:36 PM
» I Am Above The Law! from Politics and War
Yglesias wonders what the hell was on the mind of the Republicans who voted for this. Here's a theory: Senate Republicans are just feeling invincible these days. The bankruptcy debacle managed to pass, and we're opening up ANWR. Why should... [Read More]
Tracked on Mar 16, 2005 5:52:41 PM
» I Know Because I Told Me from Politics and War
A nice example of Republican argumentation: Over at Kevin Drum's place, commenter Al writes:As usual you lefties misread the political situation. Already younger people are flocking to the Republican Party because they see the promise of the Ownership ... [Read More]
Tracked on Mar 16, 2005 5:56:48 PM
Comments
Say, Matt! Do you choreograph rallies, too?
Posted by: Toby Petzold | Mar 15, 2005 8:48:37 PM
I have to say, I am relieved to see my state's lone Democratic Senator on the right side of this one, as disgusted as I was by her vote on the Bankruptcy Abomination.
Meanwhile, there are five Republican senators who can sleep at night. Good work, folks.
Posted by: B. Henderson | Mar 15, 2005 9:17:07 PM
The Ownership Society has the potential to replace the New Deal as the underlying coalition that governs for a generation.
No one will remember this vote in 2006 or 2008 but Republicans will be able to make hay over obstructionism by Democrats in the fight to secure Social Securitys future.
Posted by: Al | Mar 15, 2005 9:38:30 PM
What's the beef with bond traders? It should be the wicked hedge fund manager. They're gonna crush the public by trading in front of the government all day long. Bond traders probably made more money today, because of the news. Volatility pays.
Posted by: Scott | Mar 15, 2005 10:11:06 PM
The planets really are all aligning for a Democratic takeover of the House in 2006.
Congress's approval rating has fallen off a cliff in the last two months, and things are set to get even better.
- Tom DeLay is likely to hang around like a festering sore over the next 19 months.
- It's looking like Frist is going to go ahead with the plan to create nuclear winter in the Senate.
- And of course Social Security is the trump card.
The beauty of the situation is that most of the main GOP actors don't have to face the voters in 2006, and are seemingly willing to hang the House Republicans out to dry.
So Rahm Emmanuel will have three easy storylines to work with for 2006:
- Tom DeLay. Washington is corrupt. Throw out the bums.
- Nuclear winter in the Senate. Washington only bickers. Throw out the bums.
- Social Security. The GOP is trying to cut benefits. Tell them you won't stand for it.
Posted by: Petey | Mar 15, 2005 10:24:55 PM
50-50, Where's Cheney?
Posted by: eric | Mar 15, 2005 10:34:04 PM
"Republicans will be able to make hay over obstructionism by Democrats in the fight to secure Social Securitys future."
Al, if you really think SS is going to be an advantage for the GOP in the next election, you really need to share what you're smoking with the rest of us.
Posted by: Petey | Mar 15, 2005 10:42:00 PM
Wow, this is great, it doesn't get much more stark than the terms they got everyone's vote on for the record. This had better go places, so that we can describe it in terms of the SNL Chris Matthews parody: "Now we're playing some freakin' HARDBALL!"
Posted by: Haggai | Mar 15, 2005 11:20:07 PM
That's some first class bullshit Al, and I mean that in the most respectful, academic, Harry Frankfurt way possible, i.e. you actually have no idea whether what you say is true, but it sounds good to you and it's probably satisfying to think that readers of Matt's blog will go nuts trying to refute it. But I'll take the bait anyway. Bush is running around the country with a pitch that's no better than a hack Amway executive. Perhaps that makes him the 21st Century FDR, but I sincerely hope not.
Posted by: fnook | Mar 15, 2005 11:21:47 PM
Bush's political invincibility has always reminded me of a college football team that gets a good record by scheduling The Citadel, or Rutgers. Of course you'll seem invincible if you never play anybody.
If the Democrats can keep from acting like Vanderbilt for another year or two, Karl Rove will be stomping on his visor yet.
Posted by: Delicious Pundit | Mar 16, 2005 12:05:59 AM
All the democrats have to do is peak on election day, and not before.
I'm optimistic but burnt too many times to be overconfident.
Posted by: Andrew Osbourne | Mar 16, 2005 1:36:26 AM
Lincoln Chafee voted NO? Okay, seriously, what's going on here? Has Bill Frist kidnapped the Chafee family pet? Has he been drugged?
Posted by: Katherine | Mar 16, 2005 1:38:52 AM
Al, if this were about an issue on which the Democrats have an underlying narrative weakness in which it could play into (ie the Democrats are "weak on defense," thus look how they are fucking up this defnese bill, etc.) you might have a point.
The whole problem for the GOP on this issue is that the public doesn't support them, so they have no leverage on the Dems. The Dems just say "fuck you," lets wait to 2006. Man, I wish the GOP would set the agenda like they've been doing since Bush was reelected more often.
Posted by: Ben P | Mar 16, 2005 1:47:30 AM
Don't be so sure the public doesn't support them.
After gallons of printer's ink spilled, here's what the public says:
71% say SS is headed for a crisis down the road.
67% say fixing SS will require major changes.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/polls/polltrend_031405.html
Posted by: Ellen1910 | Mar 16, 2005 3:57:41 AM
Or to say it differently, either Dems haven't gotten the message out or the public doesn't believe the message.
If the latter, the public may be ready to swoon into Bush's strong, manly arms.
Posted by: Ellen1910 | Mar 16, 2005 4:02:28 AM
But what are the trend lines on those numbers?
Also: THE key stat from that WaPo poll: 58% dislike the Bush plan the more they hear about it. The key stat.
Posted by: Ben P | Mar 16, 2005 4:10:02 AM
...the public may be ready to swoon into Bush's strong, manly arms.
That's right. It's just a matter of the propaganda intensity. It appears that they know how to fool 51% of all people all the time. We are now in a paradigm where democratic system is simply not working.
Posted by: abb1 | Mar 16, 2005 4:14:11 AM
Ellen
The polls make very clear what the public wants and it is not on offer from Bush. In fact, it is extraordinary that the same very clear message has appeared in every poll. The public thinks something has to be done to save social security. In paticular they think that the $90,000 ceiling on wage and salary income subject to FICA should be eliminated.
They think the Bush (semi secret) plan is bad and trust Dems not Reps on social security. They are opposed to benefit cuts, raising the retirement age and raising the payroll tax rate. For once, a majority of Americans has managed to respond to a poll in a way which is logically consistent and does not depend on wording.
The public's concern about funding does not help Bush since his plan partly makes the problem worse (private accounts) and partly addresses it in a way which most Americans reject. I think (and have said from time to time to tim) that if the Dems propose eliminating the ceiling and changing nothing else in Social Security then the issue becomes a pure and huge positive for the Democrats.
If they just say no to Bush it is a winning issue but not such a huge one.
Posted by: Robert Waldmann | Mar 16, 2005 4:22:50 AM
This is something that is going to determine whether or not I put any stock in the Democratic party. In '06 EVERY LAST SENATOR that voted for big cuts to SS and debt increases should be HAMMERED with this vote. Hammered into a bloody pulp. No one that voted for this should be winning in some place like Florida.
Sadly, I'm not holding my breath. I just don't trust the Democrats to actually do what it takes to win any more.
Posted by: Timothy Klein | Mar 16, 2005 4:48:01 AM
most republicans have been happily singing as the bushliar regime drives the country over a cliff - dutiful, evil-minded dolts.
Posted by: gak | Mar 16, 2005 5:42:41 AM
most republicans have been happily singing as the bushliar regime drives the country over a cliff - dutiful, evil-minded dolts.
Posted by: gak | Mar 16, 2005 5:43:18 AM
From Lexis, here's a Time/CNN poll of April 23, 1993.
Do you think it is important for the federal government to reform the country's health care system sometime this year, or can health care reforms wait until next year (1994)?
RESULTS:
Reform this year - 71%
Wait until next year - 24
Not sure - 5
THREE-QUARTERS OF THE COUNTRY thought health care was in crisis, but the Republicans were able to tar Clinton's solution to the problem and run against it.
That is why Republicans are sweating this. They know they can't simply run in 2006 by saying "Democrats obstructed, uh, reform!" Voters are hearing that the Bush plan = privatization. They don't like privatization. And as the anti-privatization party, Democrats stand to gain from this, period.
Posted by: Gary Johnston | Mar 16, 2005 9:03:50 AM
Sadly, I'm not holding my breath. I just don't trust the Democrats to actually do what it takes to win any more.
Timothy, aren't you surprised that they even did this in the first place? I don't claim to follow these things closely, but isn't Nelson's amendment the sort of grandstanding, purely political stunt that the Repubs have been clubbing the Dems with for several years now? I'm already encouraged by it. I'm not putting down reservations for any '06 victory parade yet, or anything triumphalist at all, but this is good stuff. It's pure political theater--isn't that a strong indication that they're already thinking of how they're going to use it? Why else would they have done it at all?
Posted by: Haggai | Mar 16, 2005 9:40:08 AM
Whadya know? One of the OH senators (both R) voted yay on this. Color me shocked.
Posted by: Nash | Mar 16, 2005 9:40:09 AM
A comment about this "obstructionism" thing: it's been largely debunked as a factor in Thune's victory over Daschle, where, in this case at least, politics were truly, once again, local. Look at the contretemps concerning gaming the refs in local news coverage. Thune has confirmed this. His paid bloggers and Guckert have confirmed this. Dakotans apparently cared about Daschle's actual, you know, policy positions and didn't give a damn whether he had been painted as some Great Obstructor or not.
The large ongoing theme used by Republicans and their overt and covert supporters for over a year is "Democrats had better do/not do [whatever] or they will become a permanent minority party." Always said by the Brooks', the Reynold's, the Hannity's, the Gingrich's, the Kristof's, whoever, in "I'm just saying" tones of care and concern that a worthy adversary is doing itself an irreparable harm. And always pure bs. As has been said (you, Matt?) politics is most definitely a zero sum game, and anything that redounds to the Democrats is a torpedo pinging its way into the Republicans' ship of fools.
If you need a demonstration of the rubric, regard how Daschle became Reid in this playbook, with no sweat, no time out, no stop for tying laces.
We listen to a Kristof at our own peril.
Posted by: Nash | Mar 16, 2005 10:03:45 AM
The comments to this entry are closed.