« Substance? | Main | Joe Klein and the Industrial Age »
Taking Social Security Seriously
No link for this, but along with the right-leaning centrist notion that even though every aspect of the Bush privatization plan is bad, Democrats really ought to get on board with it anyway to show that they're serious, there's a competing brand of left-leaning Social Security centrism out there which holds that, in essence, this whole fight is a fake, the Bush plan is dead, and people should stop obsessing over it and move on to other things. I'm not really sure where idea number two comes from, though I could take a guess or two if I were so inclined. More important, though, is the fact that it's terribly wrongheaded. The basic fact is that this is a long-held goal of the Republican Party, the conservative movement, and of George W. Bush personally. It seemed to come a bit out of the blue in January, but it really was a reasonably large element of Bush's 2000 campaign pitch, and had 9/11 not intervened would probably have been the defining policy debate of his first term.
One needs to realize that the Republicans have majorities in both houses of congress. They can push this through, or possibly force the Senate Democrats into a politically difficult filibuster posture. Right now, the prospects for the plan don't look so hot because a lot of GOP Senators and House members don't seem to be on board. And that's right -- if we held the vote tomorrow it failed. But the vote won't be held tomorrow, it will be scheduled for whenever the Republicans think they can win. It would be a huge mistake to underestimate the administration's ability to whip the Republican caucus into shape. All of Bush's major bills provoked this kind of GOP grumbling. On Medicare he was able to get the House Republicans to vote for a bill that approximately zero of them probably thought was a good idea on the merits. Doing so involved violating the rules of the House, violating the laws of the United States, and lying to congress. But that's what needed to be done. Social Security privatization isn't some piddling game, and Bush won't hesitate to play hardball with his people.
The only way for this to fail is for a pretty large block of Senators and Congressmen to be absolutely convinced that if they vote for phase-out they will lose their seats. Almost all of them would prefer not to take the political risk involved in phase-out, but the White House has ways of changing their mind. If they're sure phase-out will end their careers, they won't go for it. Otherwise, the grumbling is just grumbling.
March 7, 2005 | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
https://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8345160fd69e200d8343d11b453ef
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Taking Social Security Seriously:
Comments
people should stop obsessing over it and move on to other things
We would likely all be better served if we didn't obsess over any issue to point that other issues on the GOP agenda get obscurred. I'm not in the "move on to other things" camp; I'm in the "there have been other, equally important things all along" camp.
Posted by: Shakespeare's Sister | Mar 7, 2005 1:47:38 PM
"The only way for this to fail is for a pretty large block of Senators and Congressmen to be absolutely convinced that if they vote for phase-out they will lose their seats."
At the end of the day, polling is going to drive the direction of Congressional action on this topic.
The right is going to spend a non-trivial amount of money to try to move the polls. While the AARP is spending some dough, I'm uncomfortable is relying on a non-partisan organization to shoulder the entire fight on this.
Since MoveOn is a joke, hopefully Harold Ickes is on the ball on this one.
-----
And now for something completely different, Marshall Wittman's post today on Progressive Traditionalists is the single most important topic for the future of building a Democratic majority.
Posted by: Petey | Mar 7, 2005 1:48:07 PM
Today, wapo quotes Sen. Grassley that 5 or 6 Repub senators are against further tax cuts, because of the deficit it would cause. I would think the same 5 or 6 would also be against SS privatization because of the deficit financing for private accts. Couple of more would be against the privatization because it would break the existing SS, without solving insolvency. (Alabama's Shelby said he is against private accts.) If Dems stick together and keep saying - no crisis, is fully funded until 42 or 52 and after that upto 80% si funded. Only need to fix 20% gap from years 42 (or 52) to year 75. Can be done by increasing caps to %140K (90% of all wages formula) and some benefit shaving at higher end.
This takes care of insolvency. For private accts, they should point to IRAs and make them more generous.
Posted by: ecoast | Mar 7, 2005 1:56:15 PM
since the grumbling over medicare was followed by the largest porkfest ever, we can't discount the idea that house republicans are mostly grumbling to get even more pork this time... and when rove shoves, they will get in line.
the polls on social security might look bad for republicans, but the relevance of those polls to electibility might be low... especially the relevance of the negative number. so don't count on the numbers.
Posted by: anand | Mar 7, 2005 2:01:23 PM
I watched "Spartan" last night. Val Kilmer has to save the President's daughter from administration assassins who want her dead because she's a threat to the President's re-election. The plot was entirely plausible to me. I think when it comes down to it no one is safe from almost any method of persuasion when a maniacal, determined President makes up his mind he wants something. He lets a few people know a policy decision HAS to be successful and to do whatever it takes to make it happen. Woe to the member of Congress or Cabinet that strays from the party line. There are a hundered tragic ways to meet your end that can look like a terrible accident. Ask Wellstone's family. What's left of them.
Posted by: steve duncan | Mar 7, 2005 2:19:08 PM
IRAs (or at least 401Ks) don't need to be more generous.
They should be more universal. They should be subsidized at the low end. They should be pushed for those 35 and younger - rather than the extra benefits as they are now structured, where those over 50 can make "catch-up" contributions larger than those under 50.
And, by all means ... the Democratic party should be figuring out how to turn the SS debacle into congressional majorities, in 2006.
What Senators are up for reelection in 2006? Where are GOP congressmen vunerable? Who are the opposing candidates going to be?
Posted by: Buckaroo | Mar 7, 2005 2:27:53 PM
"Today, wapo quotes Sen. Grassley that 5 or 6 Repub senators are against further tax cuts, because of the deficit it would cause. I would think the same 5 or 6 would also be against SS privatization because of the deficit financing for private accts. Couple of more would be against the privatization because it would break the existing SS, without solving insolvency. (Alabama's Shelby said he is against private accts.)"
I think you miss Matthew's point.
The vote is not today. The GOP and their allies are planning on mounting a months long campaign to try to move public opinion on the issue, and thus move Congressional votes.
Posted by: Petey | Mar 7, 2005 2:28:50 PM
"The only way for this to fail is for a pretty large block of Senators and Congressmen to be absolutely convinced that if they vote for phase-out they will lose their seats."
This is sooo last century, it's not even funny.
Sure, they'll lose their seats - and become $5 million/year lobbyists and members of two dozens boards of directors. They vote, they lose their seats (or maybe not) and they are set for life.
No, they are not afraid to lose their seats for The Party Line, every freaken one of them is dreaming of martyrdom - and Paradise that follows.
Posted by: abb1 | Mar 7, 2005 2:39:25 PM
A question for everyone:
One argument that Matt has been using is that since the Social Security surpluses have been used to lower income taxes, shouldn't income taxes later be raised to finance Social Security deficits?
My question: Are we counting the earned-income tax credit (EITC) against the "trust fund" money "owed" to Social Security from the general fund? If we are going to use this argument, shouldn't the EITC be counted against the "trust fund?"
Posted by: Glaivester | Mar 7, 2005 2:52:10 PM
GOP Congressman will vote for this only if they are confident it will pass the Senate. Which has a magic number of 60.
If Bush can pull a half dozen Democrats, it will pass the Senate.
No one loses their seat on this one. Cutting benefits 25 years from now? Hell, if there's no crisis because we've got forever to fix things, then there's no political consequence to cutting benefits that far out either. As long as the checks continue to go out to the old people, no one complains, and no one loses a seat.
Posted by: Thomas | Mar 7, 2005 3:00:19 PM
"Marshall Wittman's post today on Progressive Traditionalists"
Right, Marshall, Bad Democrats, bad Democrats. Need to move right here, right there, triangulate over yonder, give up this, give up that, and then maybe Red Staters will know Democrats are tough guys.
8 years of Bill Clinton and what did the left and center-left get on economic issues? Midnight basketball and "welfare reform". NAFTA. And Republican domination. But now we have to compromise on the social issues.
Krugman is so shrill because he understands the economics. Or read Sawicky. Senators should have shed blood on the Senate floor in 2001 to stop those taxcuts; everyone knew what they meant. This current argument is a farce. A farce.
In 5-10 years one of two things is going to happen:
A) The budget deficit will kill SS, Medicare, & Medicaid. Or
B) We come up with a trillion a year in new revenues.
You are going to change that dynamic with ha half-dozen marginal Senators and a centrist President. The President who saves the safety net will be a full-fledged leftist, whom Wall Street will want dead.
The only reasonable question for a liberal is:What is the necessary condition for B) to be the choice? Answer:the utter destruction of the Republican party.
Krugman's talking about Party, not policy or politics. And we should be talking about core abstract values that force people to choose party affiliation. We don't move on;we no longer defend Social Security; we explain the differences between Parties in the harshest broadest most deliberately offensive ways.
Posted by: bob mcmanus | Mar 7, 2005 3:03:53 PM
I actually tend to agree with Matt - deliberate self-interest is the key here. If congressional Republicans think they will lose seats - not for those who will lose them and don't care, but for the overall strength of a GOP majority - this thing remains as good as dead. In addition, if the House thinks the Senate won't go for this by 60 votes or more, also dead.
Both of these things seem currently in place. I don't underestimate the obfuscation and low-blow pulling that the White House is capable of, but it's still worth noting - they've already been doing it and it's not working. As long as the "how do you pay for it" and "how much benefits will be cut anyway" remain front and center, I still think this a nonstarter. And that, combined with the rest of the budget looming as a mega-disaster, will probably be their undoing. I know it's just me. But that's my story and I'm sticking with it.
Posted by: weboy | Mar 7, 2005 3:22:06 PM
...Senators should have shed blood on the Senate floor in 2001 to stop those taxcuts...
Indeed. Instead they made a guy from South Dakota their Senate leader. Not Kennedy, not Leahy, not Levin, not even Dodd, but a guy from Dakota for chrissake. They are deliberately playing patsies, there is no other explanation.
Posted by: abb1 | Mar 7, 2005 3:25:36 PM
"Krugman is so shrill because he understands the economics. Or read Sawicky."
Ummm...
Wittman is important precisely because he's speaking about voters who are with us on economics, but don't vote with us on election day. He's speaking about the same voters that Thomas Frank speaks about.
Wittman believes, much as I do, that there is a majority out there for a Democratic Party that is organized around economics, with more diversity and tolerance for traditional positions on social issues.
"Senators should have shed blood on the Senate floor in 2001 to stop those taxcuts"
"Shedding blood on the Senate floor" wouldn't have stopped those tax cuts. More Democratic Senators would have. I'm willing to be more tolerant to traditional social positions precisely because I find lefty economics to be so important, and because I see a majority out there for the taking in the same place Wittman does.
Posted by: Petey | Mar 7, 2005 3:32:45 PM
"No one loses their seat on this one. Cutting benefits 25 years from now?"
You might want to review the dynamics of the '82 elections, which is the last time the Republicans made an attempt to dismantle Social Security.
The '82 election is the main reason the GOP took the House in '94, instead of during the 80's.
Posted by: Petey | Mar 7, 2005 3:36:49 PM
"speaking about voters who are with us on economic"
Then Democrats should talk that way.
"Republicans want to destroy SS,Medicare,and Medicaid. If they say otherwise they are damn liars. They have been stealing money from the middle class and workers for twenty years and giving it to the rich. And if I am elected I will tax those rich bastards til their ears bleed."
If they say that, or harsher I will cut them slack on social issues. But the choice has to made clear.
(Assumed is MY's project on NatSec and defense issues. Democrats have to be strong on security.)
Posted by: bob mcmanus | Mar 7, 2005 3:41:55 PM
I'm with bob. A prominent Democratic needs to get in front of cameras and tell the country that despite the car salesman routine Bush actually wants and intends to destroy Social Security as we know it. Even Russert mentioned the phrase "secret plan to destroy SS" or something to that effect on Meet the Press yesterday.
Posted by: fnook | Mar 7, 2005 3:48:58 PM
Isn't Bush already pretty close on economics? He is no libertarian. Or was his last term just part of the plan to starve the beast? They have the power to simply vote the beast away, don't they? They control each branch of government, right?
I don't think it is accurate to charactorize Bush's economics as being terribly unlike that of the left.
Posted by: podraza | Mar 7, 2005 4:13:21 PM
A prominent Democratic needs to get in front of cameras and tell the country that despite the car salesman routine Bush actually wants and intends to destroy Social Security as we know it.
Dream on. They are working with the Republicans muddying the water, destroying the New Deal. How can you be so blind as not to see what's going on right in front of your own eyes?
Just read Bob Somerby.
These are liberals, they are rich people too - yes, they do care about lesbians being able to get a useless piece of paper out of the cityhall; no, they don't care about janitors, cashiers and other invisible people.
Posted by: abb1 | Mar 7, 2005 4:14:19 PM
Please provide me a link or links with quotes of top Republican Party officials who openly hope to phase out Social Security. I don't doubt Republicans want to eliminate Social Security, especially for political reasons, but continually saying "phase out" is dangerous if it's not connected to actual Republican Party statements and positions.
Posted by: Elrod | Mar 7, 2005 4:39:34 PM
Understood abb1, I see what's happening and I'm mostly powerless to stop it. Still, isn't there some kind of way to pull the rug on this scam? Americans respect ambition, but they do not reckless ambition. Do they?
Posted by: fnook | Mar 7, 2005 4:41:15 PM
Elrod: Why is that dangerous? This is a high stakes game and the Democrats have to fight fire with fire don't they?
Posted by: fnook | Mar 7, 2005 4:48:52 PM
Pudentilla thinks that the democrats should leverage the Social Security in support of a broad based attack against the Congressional Republicans. The theme, "it's time to take the keys away."
Posted by: Pudentilla | Mar 7, 2005 4:55:28 PM
I wanted to make a point that is similar to the point weboy made:
On Medicare he was able to get the House Republicans to vote for a bill that approximately zero of them probably thought was a good idea on the merits. Doing so involved violating the rules of the House, violating the laws of the United States, and lying to congress.
Isn't this really an argument that they might be that much less likely to do it all again?
Posted by: Martin | Mar 7, 2005 5:19:48 PM
Petey, in 1982 Republicans talked about changes in benefits for those currently receiving Social Security. That isn't on the table now, fortunately or unfortunately. (I imagine you'd be happier if it were, for the reaction.)
We're 11 years from the first benefit cuts under the outliness we've seen publicly, and those would be small. We're a generation out from real benefit cuts, and those are for people who, generally speaking, don't expect to receive anything.
Posted by: Thomas | Mar 7, 2005 5:48:25 PM
The comments to this entry are closed.