Reader mail ...
Josh -You've mentioned Social security as insurance, previously, but I think the point deserves more emphasis. Reducing social security benefits and replacing (some of) the lost benefits with private investment accounts is still gambling EVEN if the accounts earn a relatively optimistic rate of return, and EVEN if the accounts are limited to conservative investment options. The reason why private investment accounts are RISKY is because people don't know how long they will live. Someone living to (say) 95 is going to do much worse with private investments, simply because the privately invested money is going to run out well before they die.
The scam here (on the part of those trying to sell private investment accounts as a substitute) is that they (implicitly) are talking about what someone who lives to the AVERAGE lifespan will be getting. But half (or so) of retirees are going to live LONGER than average. This half will either have to withdraw money more slowly (live less well) [and how will they be able to predict this?] or will exhaust their private investment accounts long before they die.
So with private accounts, those who die early end up with some (or much) of their money going to the heirs, and those who die late end up (potentially) in poverty. Only the hypothetical "average" person (the one who dies at an average age, having exactly exhausted his/her private investments at exactly the right time) is going to do as well as any "predicted" outcome for private investment accounts<$NoAd$>.
JB
It's insurance.
--Josh Marshall
The Times today has an article running-down the Armstrong Williams flap. Like others, they relate this incident to the earlier instances in which the same PR company -- Ketchum -- produced phony news segments for the Departments of Education and Health and Human Services.
One passage of the article, however, suggests that the government-funded phony news segment phenomena is not new and that, if anything, the Clinton administration did even more of it than the Bush administration.
Thus ...
But public relations executives said that the government distribution of prepared news segments without on-air disclosures of their origin was a bipartisan practice that predated the Bush administration."The Clinton administration was probably even more active than the Bush administration" in distributing news segments promoting its policies, said Laurence Moskowitz, chairman and chief executive of Medialink, a major producer of promotional news segments. After the Government Accountability Office decision last spring, he said, his firm began advising government clients to disclose each tape's nature in its script.
This passage appears to remove the partisan dimension from the story. Yet it provides no examples of similar <$Ad$>productions under the Clinton administration.
Moreover, it appears to elide the main distinction. The GAO study which found the Bush administration productions to have been illegal rested that judgment not on the failure to disclose their source explicitly but because of the tagline "this is Karen Ryan reporting," which ended each segment.
This, they reasoned, was not simply a failure to disclose, but a positive effort to mislead viewers into believing they were watching a news report rather than a government-produced public service announcement.
(Bush administration officials were eventually able to produce for GAO at least one example of a Clinton HHS VNR which also used the 'reporting' tagline.)
Another point worth noting is the source for the Times' claim that this was done as much or even more under the Clinton administration, Laurence Moskowitz, CEO of Medialink, whose company is a major producer of these so-called VNRs.
He told the Times that it was only after the GAO's May 2004 ruling that "his firm began advising government clients to disclose each tape's nature in its script," thus implying that this was a more rigorous standard that only came into application after the May 2004 GAO report.
Yet a May 24th, 2004 article in PR Week says that these disclosure requirements have long been an established standard embodied in the guidelines of the Public Relations Society of America. And indeed in that very article, Moskowitz himself is quoted as telling PR Week: "We have always subscribed to attribution and full disclosure in the script. The GAO ruling says that if you produce a video that is fully disclosed and appropriately attributed, you are within the proper use of federal money and, therefore, not in violation (emphasis added)."
--Josh Marshall
Now that Armstrong Williams has recognized that his acceptance of a quarter million dollars to shill for the No Child Left Behind act was an instance of "bad judgment" on his part, it is presumably only a matter of time till he mounts the pulpit of Larry King Live and announces his decision to undergo a full-fledged program of journalistic ethics recovery, presumably under the guidance of some such worthy as Rabbi Shmuley Boteach, Dr. Phil, or perhaps, if he turns out to need a truly thorough journalistic dunking, Tom Rosenstiel.
But once we get past Williams himself, how about this?
Everyone has quickly and rightly connected the Armstrong Williams story to earlier instances where the administration used government funds to produce pro-Bush political propaganda. There were the phony news segments produced for the Department of Education to push the No Child Left Behind Act, similar phony news segments produced for HHS to push the new Medicare law, and the Department of Education ratings system devised to rate how different news outlets ranked on No Child Left Behind act orthodoxy and the Republican party's commitment to education.
But there's something else that links all these instances together. They were all contracted through one PR firm: Ketchum.
I don't know anything about the company. Just on a lark, I looked up the political giving of the CEO, Ray Kotcher, and noticed that until 2004 he -- and what appears to be his wife -- seemed to give exclusively to Democrats. In 2004, he had a change of heart, however, and gave $15,000 to RNC. Perhaps it was the war on terror. Who knows?
In any case, with talk of investigations already in the air and House Republicans consenting at least to one of the Williams deal, perhaps a way to narrow the focus would be to simply find out which other branches of the government Ketchum was working for and what services they provided.
Late Update: A little more digging.
There seems to be relatively little reporting on the Kentchum dimension of all these instances of the Bush administration's taxpayer-funded political propaganda. So it's hard to see just who at Ketchum or which divisions of the company were doing the work for the administration. But you'd figure it'd be their Public Affairs branch or their Washington lobbying shop.
It turns out that a big part of Ketchum's Washington operation is something called The Washington Group. TWG was founded in 1997 by three former Democratic Hill staffers. But Ketchum bought them out back in 2001 -- actually two days after President Bush's first inauguration, on January 22nd. And in the spirit of the times, Ketchum quickly began trying to help TWG bulk up on its Republican connections. In October, for instance, former Congresswoman Susan Molinari was installed as President and CEO of TWG, in order to provide the firm's clients with what Ketchum CEO Ray Kotcher described, it would seem rather presciently, as "a strong campaign-style approach to public affairs."
A year and a half later, Carlos Bonilla joined TWG as a senior vice president after leaving his post as special assistant to President George W. Bush for economic policy. "Carlos Bonilla," said Molinari when Bonilla signed on, "brings an invaluable combination of White House policy and D.C. politics to The Washington Group." In January 2004, Molinari was appointed President of Ketchum Public Affairs, a post she continues to hold in tandem with her job as CEO of TWG.
--Josh Marshall
In the week since Bob Matsui's untimely death, I've tried to separate the painful issue of his passing from our aggressive coverage of the emerging Social Security fight.
But Matsui was and would have been central to this fight, as the Democratic point-man on Social Security. So his passing means Democrats, or specifically House Democrats, must decide soon who will lead the charge against the president's Social Security phase-out plan -- in terms of strategy, message and, very importantly, as their public (i.e., media) voice on the issue.
Now, I was a bit distressed yesterday when I saw Rep. Ben Cardin of Maryland, who was next in line in seniority to Matsui on the House Ways and Means Social Security Subcommittee, quoted on the Bloomberg wire on President Bush's phase-out plan.
Saith Bloomberg ...
Representative Ben Cardin of Maryland, a senior Democrat on the Ways and Means Committee who is being courted by Republicans to support the accounts, said he would find it difficult to support the plan if its impact on the deficit, which reached a record $412 billion last year, isn't reflected in the budget."If he doesn't show how he's going to pay for it, then it's not a credible proposal from the point of view of, I think, most Democrats,'' Cardin said.
Now, I don't know about you. But that struck me as a tad equivocal. On its face, Cardin simply seemed to say that he couldn't support a phase-out bill if its costs weren't accurately reflected in the budget. But most Democrats stand in a rather more fundamental opposition -- as in opposing any phase-out plan, and especially one that will require adding one or two trillion dollars in debt.
I'm sure Cardin will come around to the right position. But it's not exactly a rousing defense of the program. And if Republicans even have the slightest inkling that they can turn the Dems' Social Security point-man over to the phase-out option, as Bloomberg suggests, something must be seriously amiss.
On the other hand, just one notch below Cardin on the subcommittee is Rep. Earl Pomeroy of North Dakota.
To the best of my recollection I've never met Pomeroy or spoken to him. But a friend of mine who knows this issue and the House very well tells me that Pomeroy not only has a deep belief in Social Security but also a deep and nuanced understanding of the program. He's also someone who can make a reasoned but also determined and persuasive case for preserving Social Security for the future. As I've said a hundred times already, party unity is critical on this issue, as is organizing. But at the end of the day they are a means to an end. And that end is persuading Americans across the country the defenders of Social Security are right on this issue and President Bush is wrong.
[An added plus with Pomeroy is that he comes from a really red state, but seems eager for this battle to protect Social Security. It is important to demonstrate clearly that whatever may be case with other issues, Social Security isn't an issue that Dems from conservative or rural districts need to run away from. In fact, I think quite the opposite.]
In any case, Pomeroy seems like the guy for the job. Not the only one, mind you. There's plenty of work to go around. And -- God forbid -- I'm not saying anyone should leapfrog the seniority queue. But he should be front and center on the Dems' Social Security team and conspicuous on the shows. Not doing so might be a really big mistake.
--Josh Marshall
This is interesting. The Democratic Party of San Fernando Valley, a coalition of 24 Democratic clubs located in or partly in the Valley [i.e., the suburbs on the northwest side of LA], just passed a resolution against President Bush's Social Security phase-out plan. And as part of their resolution they resolve "not [to] endorse or support financially any Democratic candidate who expresses support, advocates for, or votes for such a plan."
Sounds like they're pretty clear on where they stand.
--Josh Marshall
From a reader ...
Question: who else has been on the payroll?They sank a quarter of a million into one not so prominent commentator to push a single issue -- not even one where they really needed help -- and they never greased anyone else? Not so credible.
Anyway, just asking . . .
Best,
JRT
Sounds about right.
--Josh Marshall
Itsy witsy bitsy privatization<$NoAd$>?
Wolf Blitzer questioning Treasury Secretary John Snow on the president's phase-out plan, which recent reports say will divert as much as 30% of revenues into private accounts (emphasis added) ...
In terms of legislative strategy, do you envisage the Social Security reform that the president is proposing, the little partial privatization of Social Security, for that legislative battle to precede the tax simplification battle, if in fact, there is a battle? Or to be simultaneous? These two issues coming before the Congress around same time.
Perhaps there'll be an Olympic competition for egregious mimickry of the White House party-line. Of course, Armstrong Williams couldn't compete, since he's already gone pro ...
[ed.note: Special thanks to TPM reader LS.]
--Josh Marshall
A new statement from Sen. Feinstein of California on private accounts: "I strongly oppose private accounts, which could cost $1 trillion or more and still fail to improve the financial condition of Social Security. Unless I see a proposal that protects the fiscal health of Social Security and does not dramatically increase the national debt, I will continue my opposition."
--Josh Marshall
Here would be some time very well spent.
We've noted before that the "on hold" recording that now plays when you call the Social Security Administration includes thinly-veiled Bush administration propaganda about Social Security's insolvency and the need for "long range changes" in the program, and the sooner the better. Similar verbiage is now contained in the mailings that the SSA sends out to all Americans who pay into the system, describing their lifetime earnings and projected benefits.
And I'm told that this soft pro-privatization propaganda has been getting more pointed over the last three years, even as the actuaries at SSA have been reporting that the predicted Social Security funding shortfalls are receding further and further into the future.
So here's the idea -- one that takes on even more timeliness with the revelations today about the administration and Armstrong Williams: why not prepare a well-crafted FOIA request to the SSA requesting any and all documents relating to the preparation and authorship of the increasingly pro-privatization boilerplate that appears and plays on the SSA's various mailings and phone recordings?
Go back to 2001 and bring it up until today.
Who will do it?
--Josh Marshall
Courtesy of Atrios, this from USA Today ...
Seeking to build support among black families for its education reform law, the Bush administration paid a prominent black pundit $240,000 to promote the law on his nationally syndicated television show and to urge other black journalists to do the same.The campaign, part of an effort to promote No Child Left Behind (NCLB), required commentator Armstrong Williams "to regularly comment on NCLB during the course of his broadcasts," and to interview Education Secretary Rod Paige for TV and radio spots that aired during the show in 2004.
Williams said Thursday he understands that critics could find the arrangement unethical, but "I wanted to do it because it's something I believe in."
I can't say I'm too exercised <$Ad$> one way or another about Armstrong Williams' professional ethics, or lack thereof. But taxpayer money for this? This sounds like it's clearly political work. Perhaps that fat Bush-Cheney campaign fund should reimburse the taxpayers. If the White House wants to fully fund Armstrong Williams instead of the NCLB bill, let them do it on their own dime.
PS. This also gets us back to the issue of OpEd payola, which we discussed back in March 2002 and at other times. This was a topic I was collecting information on for years, but so far at least never got around to writing. As I said in that earlier post, many more OpEds than you'd imagine are bought and paid for. At a few of the premium dailies it's hard to pull off. But beyond those it's pretty common, though often without the editors even being aware of it. There are even a few prominent papers known by those in the business to be an easy (and willing) mark.
--Josh Marshall
A new member of the Senate's Fainthearted Faction: Sen. Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas.
Notwithstanding Sen. Arlen Specter's declared opposition to a private-accounts-based Social Security phase-out, Sen. Lindsey Graham is putting together a working group of six senators (seven, including Graham) "seek[ing] agreement on a bipartisan blueprint for shoring up Social Security, preferably before President Bush outlines his plan and partisan lines harden in Congress."
So reports Thursday's Wall Street Journal.
The six include 2 Republicans and 4 Democrats. And Graham is holding the meetings with the "encouragement" of the White House.
The Senators are Republicans Charles Grassley of Iowa and Judd Gregg of New Hampshire. The Democrats are Max Baucus of Montana, Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas, Joe Lieberman of Connecticut and Ben Nelson of Nebraska.
In March 2002, Sen. Lieberman called "privatization" a "dangerous mistake."
"Social Security privatization," he said, "would take away the safety from the safety net, and turn the idea of a rainy day fund into a sink or swim proposition."
"We understand Social Security's economic value and appreciate its moral value," he wisely observed, "and that we won't let it be diluted, dismantled or dissolved."
I couldn't agree more. And yet the president has made clear that any plan must include privatization, a private-accounts-based partial phase-out of Social Security.
So what is there to talk about exactly?
On October 21st 1998, when first running for senate, Sen. Lincoln called privatization "dangerous" and made opposition to it a key plank in her campaign.
So, again, what is there to talk about?
Why are we picking on Faction newcomer Sen. Lincoln and not Sen. Baucus, you ask?
Because Baucus seems to have bailed out. Notwithstanding his participation in the meetings, the Times reports Baucus "said on Thursday that he would oppose the president's Social Security plan this year."
In an interview with the Times, Baucus, who provided the president key support on the 2001 tax cut bill and the Medicare bill, said, ""I seriously doubt I'm going to be the linchpin this time ... [private accounts will] exacerbate the problem, not solve it."
Meanwhile, according to the Washington Post, a telling division is emerging between Senate and House Republicans.
While Senators like Chuck Grassley, Lindsey Graham and others believe the "White House should leave it to Congress to work quietly on a bipartisan Social Security package that is not explicitly the president's," House leaders are sending a very different message. According to the Post, they're insisting that "the president has to issue a detailed plan to restructure Social Security and add personal investment accounts, then sell it himself before he could possibly hope to get broad Republican support."
And what's the big difference between the Senate and the House? Right. The folks in the House all have to face the voters next year. Most in the senate don't have to for three or five years. And the president never.
And as long as we're on the subject, which party seems more divided over this issue?
--Josh Marshall
Alberto Gonzales believes that the president can immunize individuals for committing acts of torture and that he has the power to authorize violations of criminal law. That's how Chris Suellentrop interprets what Gonzales said today on the Hill in Slate. And he makes a very persuasive case.
And this is the man who will soon be the highest ranking law enforcement officer in the land.
It defies comment.
--Josh Marshall
Here's an overnight Associated Press piece entitled "Bush Pledges to Lead on Social Security." It has most of what you'd expect and then <$NoAd$> this ...
Though Republicans have increased their majority in both houses, changes would require clearing a hurdle of 60 votes in the Senate.Underscoring that difficulty, Sen. Arlen Specter, a prominent Republican moderate, has expressed his opposition to cuts in promised Social Security benefits for future retirees
"I strongly oppose this approach," Specter says in a letter on his official Web site. The Pennsylvania Republican did not state a position on investment accounts.
No position on private accounts? Try digging a little deeper. As we reported earlier today, Sen. Specter has taken a very definitive position on privatization and private accounts: He's against them.
In the penultimate graf of the letter his office is currently sending out in response to queries from constituents, Specter writes ...
On the issue of privatization, I had some time ago considered an idea to place a relatively small portion of benefits in an investment account, providing that the “security” aspect of Social Security was retained and the investment was under professional management. However, with the severe fluctuations of the stock market, I have since rejected that idea.
And this is as you'd expect since this is the position he clearly enunciated during the campaign this year when he was running against Rep. Joe Hoeffel. As he said at the WTAE-TV debate in Pittsburgh on October 2nd, according to the AP ...
"At one time I had considered a small portion of Social Security in private accounts," Specter said during the hourlong debate at the WTAE-TV studio in Pittsburgh. But after a closer examination, "I think it is unwise," he said. "I believe the seniors ought to be reassured that their Social Security benefits are solid."
So notwithstanding the report in tonight's AP piece, I think Sen. Specter is being quite clear on his opposition to private accounts. He stated his opposition during the heat of the campaign. And he's making the point now even more clearly in the letter he's sending constituents, now that he doesn't have to face voters against for another six years, if then even. As Specter himself says, he has "rejected" the idea of private accounts.
--Josh Marshall
This just keeps hanging out there. Part of the package in the complete evisceration of the House ethics rules, which the Republicans planned but then pulled back from passing, was canning Joel Hefley (R-CO) as Chairman of the Ethics Committee.
Hefley oversaw the serial admonishments of Rep. Tom DeLay. He disagreed with the DeLay Rule. And he thought the 'reforms' the House GOP caucus finally backed off passing were a bad idea. "This is not the way to effect meaningful reform. Ethics reform must be bipartisan and this package is not bipartisan," said Hefley.
So now the DeLay rules gone. And the ethics 'reforms', or most of them, are gone. But Hefley, well ... the grammatical symmetry doesn't work perfectly, but he's still gone too.
But there's a hold up, says the Post. No, there's no question that Hefley's out of there. But they can't make it official yet because Denny Hastert can't decide who to replace him with. "Hefley has fallen out of favor with GOP leaders and is not trusted by them to handle ethics cases that Democrats might bring against Republican lawmakers, according to aides," says the Post.
And the Post continues ...
One Republican official called Hefley's ouster "a defense measure." Aides said they did not know when the new chairman would be announced. By midweek, Hastert's staff had compiled a list of about 40 candidates.
A list of 40 candidates, eh? Sounds like they want someone really, really, really reliable. Defense measure, indeed.
--Josh Marshall
A note from a reader ...
There are $1.8 trilliion <$NoAd$> in U.S. Treasury securities in the U.S. Social Security Trust Fund. It is imperative that the Democrats ask Bush whether he intends to honor that obligations and force him to make a public proclamation of his steadfast commitment to do so. The Democrats must take the lead in committing themselves to honor those obligations.The Social Security Trust Fund is in fine shape with that $1.8 trillion dollar surplus.
It's the taxpayers obligation to the Trust Fund, (and the rest of the accumulated national debt that is the problem).
The Federal government should be paying down debt (not running $412 billion deficits) so it will have the borrowing capacity to pay off the obligations to the Trust Fund.
PRN
Not a bad idea. And the point the reader makes in the last graf is something everyone who is sane and can use a calculator should agree with. Come to think of it, that's what we were doing before George W. Bush became president ...
--Josh Marshall
We're all familiar with the many blogs that follow the rough storms of national politics. But there's also an efflorescence of blogs that devote themselves to the politics of a particular state or city. I just heard today, for instance, about a new blog called Hall Monitor, run by the Time Argus/Rutland Herald Statehouse bureau chief, Darren Allen. In other words, if you want to follow Vermont politics, that'd probably be a good place to start.
Obviously, Allen is a professional newsman. But, just as on the national level, there are also a great number of passionate and committed amateurs who've set up their own sites to follow and/or affect politics in their neck of the woods.
Micah Sifry wants to set up a directory of these state and local blogs. So if you have one, or know of a good one, stop by here and drop him a line.
--Josh Marshall
As we've said again and again, we're following the doings and shenanigans of the Fainthearted Faction for a very specific reason: we want all Democrats lined up in opposition to the president's Social Security phase-out bill, because that raises the stakes and puts the focus on those Republicans who might be scared to help phase-out Social Security without a good bit of bipartisan cover.
We don't want to assume only cynical motives. Some probably just don't want to be part of ending Social Security. And as we wrote late last month, that's why we're calling them the Conscience Caucus.
The concept is the same as the Fainthearted Faction, only inverted: these are the Republicans who seem most likely to leave President Bush waiting at the altar when he comes a'courtin' with his Social Security phase-out plan.
Now, we're pretty confident that the Caucus is going to be a good deal larger than the Faction. And many of those members are going to be reps. and senators who have their fingers to the wind and eyes on the polls seeing what looks safe and what doesn't. But today we've got a senator who seems to have committed himself to opposing the president's plan even before the whistle gets blown.
In response to constituent queries about his position on Social Security, Sen. Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania just started sending out an email outlining his position. In the email he professes his support for the program, his enchantment with the lockbox and various other points.
But the heart of the note is contained in two paragraphs (emphasis added) ...
As the baby boomer population ages and enters into retirement, the need for Social Security reform becomes even more apparent. Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan urged Congress in February of 2004 to deal with the country’s escalating budget deficit by cutting benefits for future Social Security retirees. I strongly oppose this approach....
On the issue of privatization, I had some time ago considered an idea to place a relatively small portion of benefits in an investment account, providing that the “security” aspect of Social Security was retained and the investment was under professional management. However, with the severe fluctuations of the stock market, I have since rejected that idea.
In the first graf quoted he rules out benefit cuts and in the second, unless I'm missing something, he categorically rules out privatization, i.e., private investment accounts funded by a carve-out from Social Security revenues.
So that's pretty much it. Specter isn't just in the Caucus. As long as he sticks by what he says in this letter to constituents, he's out of play completely for the president.
(Hold on to that Chairmanship with both hands, Arlen.)
--Josh Marshall
The first member of the Republicans' Conscience Caucus makes it official. Check back soon.
--Josh Marshall
A short note on Fainthearted Faction methodology.
First off, a great number of you are writing or emailing or calling your representatives and senators to express your concern or displeasure about their willingess to join with President Bush in phasing-out Social Security. And I know from direct knowledge, because I'm hearing from staff from many of those offices, that what you are doing is having a concrete, immediate and positive effect.
The following will be repetition for many of you. But let me take a moment to reiterate what gets folks in the Fainthearted Faction.
The list is not a list of people who have endorsed the president's plan. To the best of my knowledge, there is only one member of congress -- Rep. Allen Boyd of Florida's 2nd District -- who has endorsed the president's plan -- specifically, the version he is cosponsoring with Rep. Jim Kolbe (R-AZ). The Fainthearted Faction is made up of those senators and representatives who appear most likely to go along with the president in phasing-out Social Security.
Some in the House got on the list because of their vote against the Filner Amendment in 2001 -- a proxy vote on the privatization issue. Others are on the list because of their stated willingness to consider phasing-out Social Security. And in each case they are there because, as the debate has gotten underway, they've declined to make any clear and definitive statement that they plan to oppose the president's phase-out plan.
It's not a perfect science. There's judgment involved. But we've put in a lot of effort and consulted a lot of sources, both public and private, to focus in on this group. And we think it gives a good sense of whose votes are in play.
I'm very optimistic that most of these folks will finally end up opposing the president's phase-out plan. But as I noted last night and in other posts, for saving Social Security it is far, far more important that they go on record with their opposition now then a month, or six months or a year from now. And the reason they will do that is because they hear from their constituents who tell them that their equivocation on such a vital issue is something they find unacceptable.
Believe me, it is making a big difference. And it could scarcely be more important.
Okay, enough of my preaching. Just wanted to make that all clear.
--Josh Marshall
In case you haven't seen it, here's the full text of the Wehner Memo (all formatting and emphasis from the original email) <$NoAd$> ...
From: Wehner, Peter H.
Sent: Monday, January 03, 2005 2:57 PM
Subject: Some Thoughts on Social Security
I wanted to provide to you our latest thinking (not for attribution) on Social Security reform.
I don't need to tell you that this will be one of the most important conservative undertakings of modern times. If we succeed in reforming Social Security, it will rank as one of the most significant conservative governing achievements ever. The scope and scale of this endeavor are hard to overestimate.
Let me tell you first what our plans are in terms of sequencing and political strategy. We will focus on Social Security immediately in this new year. Our strategy will probably include speeches early this month to establish an important premise: the current system is heading for an iceberg. The notion that younger workers will receive anything like the benefits they have been promised is fiction, unless significant reforms are undertaken. We need to establish in the public mind a key fiscal fact: right now we are on an unsustainable course. That reality needs to be seared into the public consciousness; it is the pre-condition to authentic reform.
Given that, our aim is to introduce market reforms in Social Security and make the system permanently solvent and sustainable.
We intend to pursue the first goal by using our will and energy toward the creation of Personal Retirement Accounts. As you know, our advocacy for personal accounts is tied to our commitment to an Ownership Society -- one in which more people will own their health care plans and have the confidence of owning a piece of their retirement. Our goal is to provide a path to greater opportunity, more freedom, and more control for individuals over their own lives. That is what the personal account debate is fundamentally about -- and it is clearly the crucial new conservative idea in the history of the Social Security debate.
Second, we're going to take a very close look at changing the way benefits are calculated. As you probably know, under current law benefits are calculated by a "wage index" -- but because wages grow faster than inflation, so do Social Security benefits. If we don't address this aspect of the current system, we'll face serious economic risks.
It's worth noting that wage indexation was not part of the original design of Social Security. The current method of wage indexation was created in 1977, under (you guessed it) the Carter Administration. Wage indexation makes it impossible to "grow our way" out of the Social Security problem. If the economy grows faster and wages rise, this produces more tax revenue. But the faster wage growth also means that we owe more in Social Security benefits. This has produced a never-ending cycle of higher tax burdens, even during periods of robust economic growth. It is the classic case of the dog chasing his tail around the tree; he can run faster and faster, and never make any progress.
You may know that there is a small number of conservatives who prefer to push only for investment accounts and make no effort to adjust benefits -- therefore making no effort to address this fundamental structural problem. In my judgment, that's a bad idea. We simply cannot solve the Social Security problem with Personal Retirement Accounts alone. If the goal is permanent solvency and sustainability -- as we believe it should be --then Personal Retirements Accounts, for all their virtues, are insufficient to that task. And playing "kick the can" is simply not the credo of this President. He wants to do what needs to be done for genuine repair of Social Security.
If we duck our duty, it can have serious short-term economic consequences. Here's why. If we borrow $1-2 trillion to cover transition costs for personal savings accounts and make no changes to wage indexing, we will have borrowed trillions and will still confront more than $10 trillion in unfunded liabilities. This could easily cause an economic chain-reaction: the markets go south, interest rates go up, and the economy stalls out. To ignore the structural fiscal issues -- to wholly ignore the matter of the current system's benefit formula -- would be irresponsible.
Here's a startling fact: under current law, an average retiree in 2050 would be scheduled to receive close to 40 percent more (in real terms) in benefits than an average retiree today -- and yet there are no mechanisms in place to produce the revenue to pay out those benefits. No one on this planet can tell you why a 25-year-old person today is entitled to a 40 percent increase in Social Security benefits (in real terms) compared to what a person retiring today receives.
To meet those benefit levels, one option would be to raise the age at which people receive benefits. If we followed the formula used when Social Security was first created -- make the age at which you receive Social Security benefits above the average age of mortality -- we'd be looking at raising the benefit age to around 80. That ain't gonna happen.
Another way to meet those benefit levels is through the traditional Democrat/liberal way: higher taxation. According to the latest report of the Social Security Trustees, the current system's benefit formula would require some $10 trillion in tax increases over the long term. We'd therefore need to raise the payroll tax almost 20 percent simply to provide wage-indexed benefit levels to those born this year.
This will all sound familiar. In the past, the way Congress usually addressed the built-in funding problem was by raising payroll taxes (from 2 percent in 1937 to 12.4 percent today). In fact, Congress has raised Social Security taxes more than 30 times -- but it has never addressed the underlying problem. Avoiding the core issue by raising taxes is not the modus operandi of this President.
The other key point, as you know, is that personal accounts, through the miracle of compound interest, will provide workers with higher retirement benefits than they are currently receiving from Social Security.
At the end of the day, we want to promote both an ownership society and advance the idea of limited government. It seems to me our plan will do so; the plan of some others won't.
Let me add one other important point: we consider our Social Security reform not simply an economic challenge, but a moral goal and a moral good. We have a responsibility to fulfill the promise of Social Security, not undermine it. And we have a duty to ensure that we do not create an inter-generational conflict -- which is precisely what will happen if the Social Security system is not reformed. We need to retain strong ties between the generations, which is of course a deeply conservative belief.
The debate about Social Security is going to be a monumental clash of ideas -- and it's important for the conservative movement that we win both the battle of ideas and the legislation that will give those ideas life. The Democrat Party leadership, the AARP, and many others will go after Social Security reform hammer and tongs. See today's silly New York Times editorial (its only one for the day) as one example. But Democrats and liberals are in a precarious position; they are attempting to block reform to a system that almost every serious-minded person concedes needs it. They are in a position of arguing against modernizing a system created almost four generations ago. Increasingly the Democrat Party is the party of obstruction and opposition. It is the Party of the Past.
For the first time in six decades, the Social Security battle is one we can win -- and in doing so, we can help transform the political and philosophical landscape of the country. We have it within our grasp to move away from dependency on government and toward giving greater power and responsibility to individuals.
There are of course other important issues dealing with Social Security; for now, though, I've covered quite enough ground. I wanted to let you know where things stand. If you have any questions, or if we can send you anything to clarify our plans and respond to critics, just let me know. The President remains flexible on tactics -- and rock-solid on the principles. But there's nothing new there.
In one of his last public acts of an extraordinary public life, the late Democratic Senator from New York, Daniel Patrick Moynihan, co-chaired the President's Commission to Strengthen Social Security. In the introduction of its report, Senator Moynihan (along with Richard Parsons, his co-chair) wrote, "the time to include personal accounts in such action [reforming Social Security] has, indeed, arrived. The details of such accounts are negotiable, but their need is clear.... Carpe diem!"
And so we shall.
Get out your red pens.
--Josh Marshall
The stakes (from Thursday's Journal ...)
Senate Republicans signaled their wariness yesterday in a private retreat on the year's legislative agenda with White House adviser Karl Rove. An attendee said the senators gave Mr. Rove "a subtle but clearly identifiable message that the GOP [Grand Old Party] would go along...but they were scared to death." The senators indicated that the president "had to step up his activity" to sell his initiative to Americans, which Mr. Rove said Mr. Bush would do. But the attendee said senators also warned the Social Security proposal "needed to be bipartisan or else no go."Still, some Republicans are resigned to uniting behind the president, given his determination. "The president is going to go ahead," said Rep. Tom Cole of Oklahoma, a Republican leadership lieutenant. "He cannot afford to fail. It would have repercussions for the rest of his program, including foreign policy. We can't hand the president a defeat on his major domestic initiative at a time of war."
Let's just <$Ad$>agree to pass over that last comment, the implication of which is if Social Security is preserved it would be a win for the terrorists, and just note the following ...
The prerequisite for defending and preserving Social Security is Democratic unity. As the senators apparently told Mr. Rove, down-the-line opposition from the Democrats raises the stakes on them dramatically. Then the demise of Social Security becomes a Republican deed through and through. And all the political coverage of the Social Security debate will center on divisions among Republicans, their internal discussions of strategy, who has cold feet about the phase-out and who's pushing full steam ahead.
But for the prerequisite for all of this is Democratic unity. Muddy the waters and the whole picture changes.
You might mention it to these folks ...
The Fainthearted Faction
House
Rep. Allen Boyd (D-FL) (L&P!)
Rep. Robert "Bud" Cramer (D-AL)
Rep. Harold Ford (D-Tenn) (*)
Rep. Ron Kind (D-Wisc) (OFO?)
Rep. James Moran (D-VA) (*)
Rep. Collin Peterson (D-MN)
Rep. Ike Skelton (D-MO) (*)
Rep. Adam Smith (D-WA)
Rep. John Tanner (D-Tenn)
Rep. Gene Taylor (D-Miss)
Senate (note: senate list is roughly in order of relative Faction-hood ...)
Ben Nelson (D-NE)
Dianne Feinstein (D-CA)
Tom Carper of (D-DE)
Evan Bayh (D-IN)
(Say It Ain't So) Joe Lieberman (D-CT)
Associate Members
Gov. Ed Rendell (D-PA) (*)
(ed.note: 'L&P!' designates members who are "Loud and Proud!" in their support of the president's phase-out bill. "OFO?" designates members who may already have "One Foot Out" of the Fainthearted Faction. Linked asterisks (*) note events, statements or stories that have affected a member's position within the Fainthearted Faction.)
--Josh Marshall
The key passage in the Wehner Memo (the leaked memo written by Karl Rove's deputy, Peter H. Wehner and reported this evening in various news outlets).
Let me tell you first what our plans are in terms of sequencing and political strategy. We will focus on Social Security immediately in this new year. Our strategy will probably include speeches early this month to establish an important premise: the current system is heading for an iceberg. The notion that younger workers will receive anything like the benefits they have been promised is fiction, unless significant reforms are undertaken. We need to establish in the public mind a key fiscal fact: right now we are on an unsustainable course. That reality needs to be seared into the public consciousness; it is the pre-condition to authentic reform.
Remind you of anything?
Also included is a nice encapsulated history lesson: "For the first time in six decades, the Social Security <$Ad$> battle is one we can win -- and in doing so, we can help transform the political and philosophical landscape of the country."
In other words, this isn't about the fiscal soundness of Social Security or the babyboomers moving toward retirement or anything else. As Wehner himself says, this is the best chance the opponents of Social Security have had in six decades of trying to phase-out the program.
And this allows us to see the whole matter clearly. Social Security has been around for seventy years. How many people do you know who really don't like Social Security? Back when I was younger I'd go spend part of my summer at the subsidized retirement community where my grandparents lived. And I don't remember many people who lived there bad-mouthing Social Security. And those folks had lived under the program for pretty much all of their adults lives.
Or, the more relevant question, how about people today? How many people think Social Security is a bad thing? A program that never should have existed? I'm not saying how many worry that the program may not be there when they retire. How many people don't even like the whole concept?
I think they're in a distinct minority.
So now you can see from memos emerging from the White House itself that this isn't about 'saving' Social Security. If it were, what would that sentence mean -- ("For the first time in six decades, the Social Security battle is one we can win")? The first time in six decades they can save it?
Clearly, this isn't about 'saving' Social Security. It is a battle to end Social Security and replace with something that Wehner clearly understands is very different, indeed the antithesis of Social Security.
This entire debate is about ideology -- between people who believe in the benefits Social Security has brought America in the last three-quarters of a century and those who think it was a bad idea from the start. There is an honest debate to have on this point, a values debate. Only, the White House understands that the belief that Social Security was always a bad program isn't widely shared by Americans. So they have to wrap their effort in a package of lies, harnessing Americans' desire to save Social Security in their own effort to destroy it.
--Josh Marshall
John Snow, the magician (from the Times ...)
In addition, he is dispatching his Treasury secretary, John W. Snow, to New York to reassure Wall Street that his approach, which could involve trillions of dollars in new government borrowing, is consistent with efforts to reduce the budget deficit and improve the nation's financial condition.Trillions in new borrowing "is consistent with efforts to reduce the budget deficit." Lucky they've got a silver tongue like John Snow.
--Josh Marshall
Senator Blanche Lincoln on Social Security ...
Dear Constituent:Thank you for contacting me regarding social security. I am glad to hear from you on this important topic.
Preserving Social Security for future generations is one of my most important priorities this Congress. Demographic changes in our country are looming and require us to act now to ensure the solvency of the Social Security system.
I believe in the promise our government made to working Americans
that if we work hard, Social Security will be there to help us in our golden years. Social Security has made a secure retirement possible for tens of millions of Americans. However, it is important that everyone, especially Baby Boomers, plan for their retirement by supplementing Social Security with personal savings, pensions, and other financial investments.I will not support any Social Security reform proposal that does not protect the benefits currently provided to women and low-income workers. Unfortunately, 25% of older women in Arkansas live in poverty. Along with my female Senate colleagues, I have developed a fairness checklist for women to serve as a guideline for members of Congress as we consider legislation to reform Social Security. It is critical that any Social Security proposal pass this fairness checklist before gaining support from Congress:
Preserve Social Security's guaranteed, lifetime, inflation-protected benefit;
Protect disabled workers and their families;Maintain the system's progressive benefit structure;
Strengthen the Social Security system, while ensuring that women and other economically-disadvantaged groups are protected as much as possible;
Aim to further reduce poverty among older women;
If it includes other retirement savings options, these
options would not reduce or replace guaranteed Social Security benefits.
Through my positions on the Senate Finance Committee and the Senate Special Committee on Aging, I will continue to work with the President and my colleagues on a plan to make our Social Security system fiscally sound for its future beneficiaries.
I appreciate knowing your views on this important issue. Please feel free to contact me again if I may be of any assistance to you.
What does it say? Get out your red pens. <$NoAd$> Who can identify the key phrases?
--Josh Marshall
Berry expelled from the Fainthearted Faction!!!
We noted yesterday that Rep. Marion Berry of Arkansas might be fixin' to leave the Fainthearted Faction. And this afternoon, in response to a request for comment from a reporter, he released the following statement to a local TV station in Jonesboro ...
"Social Security is a sacred bond between the US Government and the citizens of this country. I will not support any Social Security changes that encroach on that promise...ever. Beyond that, I will not support any changes to Social Security -- including privatization schemes -- that require us to borrow any additional funds. President Bush's initial proposals would require borrowing trillions of dollars to pay for his plans; I cannot support any plans that put this country any deeper in debt."
To our minds, it <$Ad$>would be even better if the congressman had addressed the issue of privatization and phase-out in itself rather than primarily as an issue of fiscal discipline. However, the point of the Faction is not to get people to sign on to orthodoxies or catechisms. The point is get some clear and definitive word on where they stand on the president's phase-out plan.
Many Reps. and Senators have made general comments that any reform has to be fiscally responsible and that they'll never harm Social Security. But that can mean anything. Berry, on the other hand, is being far more specific. He says he cannot support "any changes to Social Security -- including privatization schemes -- that require us to borrow any additional funds." (emphasis added)
One can imagine various permutations of an eventual Bush plan. But as far as I can tell there's no conceivable permutation that would involve no borrowing whatsoever. Even Lindsey Graham's bill requires substantial borrowing.
Transition costs are just unavoidable and huge -- and we're already in deficits. So I think Berry has made his position clear.
So, as Donald Trump might say, Marion Berry (requisite hand gesture), you're fired from the Fainthearted Faction.
[ed.note: And in case you're counting, that brings the House Faction down to an even ten.]
--Josh Marshall
Here's a question -- one I don't know the answer to, but one which I suspect may have an uncomfortable answer. We know that Al Gonzales has been White House Counsel for the last four years and that he's played an instrumental role in several legal findings and memos which have given legal sanction to torture (or what I guess we might call 'the act formerly known as torture'). What if Gonzales had had some roughly equivalent position in Argentina or Chile in the late 1970s? Would he have faced subsequent legal vulnerability and/or consequences?
Strip the question of drama and theatrics and assumptions. I'm curious to hear a purely factual answer.
--Josh Marshall
We'll be saying more about this in the coming days. But I wanted to note something about former Congressman Tim Roemer, who's currently a candidate to be Chairman of the DNC -- and has the improbable support, I'm told, of Minority Leaders Reid and Pelosi.
We've already noted that he voted against the Filner Amendment, which would have put him in the Fainthearted Faction had he still been in Congress today -- though he campaigned against privatization in the 2002 election. Others meanwhile are understandably concerned about his opposition to abortion rights.
But here's something I didn't know.
Roemer was one of the Democrats that voted against the Clinton budget of 1993 -- the one that in the end won by a single vote and cost Marjorie Margolies-Mezvinsky and so many others their seats. (Not just the big vote, but a number that led up to it.) Then he was one of an even smaller number of Democrats who voted for President Bush's 2001 Budget bill. If I'm not mistaken, he was one of only 9 Dems in the House to vote to make the Bush cuts permanent the following year.
As I've said many times before, with a very few exceptions, we shouldn't view a politician's entire career through the prism of a single vote. But those two votes are awfully significant. They frame the mammoth fiscal challenges the country faces today. And they are at the root of the Democratic party's current claim to be the party of growth, equity, fiscal responsibility and economic stewardship. To me at least, that's a very important part of what the Democratic party stands for today.
When Democrats claim credit, as they rightly do again and again, for bringing the country from perpetual deficits to surpluses in the 1990s, a major part of what they're talking about has to be the 1993 budget bill. When they denounce the Republicans as the party of deficits, fiscal recklessness and enemies of Social Security, in an equal measure, they're talking about President Bush's 2001 bill.
Yet both of those arguments, by definition, are one's Roemer simply cannot make because he was on the other side of the issue both times. At best he would be a mockery whenever he debated Republicans on anything to do with fiscal policy since he consistently voted with them and not his own party. And no doubt they'd point that out.
I've said before that I've always thought Roemer seemed like he had a lot of attractive qualities as a politician. He was great on the 9/11 Commission. And the Democratic party certainly needs to be open to people who dissent from the party's majority position on even such a central issue as this. But I just cannot understand how someone with those votes and that over-arching position can be the titular head of the Democratic party. It just doesn't make sense. And I can't see how the party's leadership in the House and Senate could be supporting him either.
--Josh Marshall
Lots of news today in the Senate's Fainthearted Faction.
First, the good news.
According to Ron Brownstein's piece in the LAT, both the DLC and Third Way "expect to issue statements soon opposing Bush's push to divert part of the Social Security payroll tax into accounts that individuals could invest in the stock market."
As I've hinted previously, I expected the DLC to come out against the president's plan. But I had real concerns that Third Way would play ball on the phase-out. And in this case I couldn't be happier to be proven wrong.
I'll be curious to see the fine print on their statement. But that's certainly a very welcome development since now it seems clear that every major Democratic policy group from the most leftish labor-liberals to the newest New Dems are united in believing that the Bush Social Security phase-out plan is bad policy for America.
Before proceeding, a side note: Democrats have plenty of things more important to do right now than to fight amongst themselves. And I know a lot of readers of this site have strong suspicions or negative feelings about the DLC -- in some cases because of very real policy differences. But members of a coalition party have to strive to celebrate moments of agreement at least a bit more than they rush to clamor over the inevitable disagreements. So maybe take a moment to give these guys (DLC and Third Way) some encouragement for doing the right thing.
On the other hand, notwithstanding what the policy wonks are saying, we've got some definite additions to the Senate's Fainthearted Faction.
First off, what strikes me at least as a surprise. California's Dianne Feinstein. Say it ain't so? Tell me about it.
Feinstein sent out a letter today to a number of constituents who asked her whether she supported privatization and/or the president's Social Security phase-out bill. In that letter she says pretty much everything you can imagine except for anything remotely like answering the question.
The closest she seems to come is toward the end where she writes ...
Most policy makers agree that the rate of growth of this program, as well as the oversight of its expenditures, must be addressed to ensure its integrity and preservation. I am confident that if Congress works together, it is possible that Social Security can meet its long term commitments.
Who knows what that means?
But reading the tea-leaves I think it shows an openness to the president's plan. More to the point, though, she's clearly not willing to say she opposes replacing part of Social Security with private accounts. And that really means you're in the Faction by definition since the outlines and many of the details of the president's plan are already clear.
I should also note that I see a lot of these constituent letters and they're often ambiguous. So they have to be read in the context of a member's previous legislative record. In this case, we should note that Feinstein voted for the president's awful Medicare bill as well as his 2001 tax cut bill, which has played such a wonderful role in throwing the country back into major structural budget deficits.
So for all those reasons combined, Feinstein's in the Faction big time -- though why she feels the need to be when even the major centrist groups seem opposed to the president's approach and she comes from an ocean-blue state like California is beyond me.
Next up is Tom Carper of Delaware. He's refusing to rule out private-accounts-based Social Security phase-out plan. And he told the LAT: "For now, we should leave things on the table and have a debate about them."
So he's in the Faction.
Next up, is Evan Bayh of Indiana. He's refusing to say no to a phase-out. But here's what the LAT says about him ...
Still, many of the Democratic centrists are signaling that they might support private accounts only with conditions Republicans likely would find difficult to accept. Bayh said he would consider a private account plan only if it could "maintain the safety net, maintain progressivity (in benefits) and protect the taxpayers (from more debt)."
We should note that there are going to be Democrats who for reasons of temperament as much as ideology are not going to state opposition from the outset, but will set conditions -- such as these -- that seem to all but commit them to opposition. I think that's what Bayh's doing here. So he's in the Faction, but only just. Like Carper, he's one of the three senate principals in Third Way. So maybe their alleged statement of opposition will or already has swayed him.
(Keep in mind that Bayh thinks he can run for president one day. So I would think that the best way to encourage him is to make sure he understands that he will never get the Democratic nomination for president or vice president if he votes in the affirmative for a bill that dismantles Social Security.)
Next up, Joe Lieberman. The LAT also has Lieberman down as one of the group of senators who will not commit themselves to opposition to the president's plan. It also says that "Lieberman, with Sen. Olympia J. Snowe, R-Maine, is leading a group of moderates from both parties that have begun efforts to determine if they can reach a consensus position on Social Security reform."
Now, I've been given to believe that Lieberman is not going to stray on this issue. And a bit after the election he told the New Haven Register that the Bush plan "may well worsen the financial condition of the existing
program ... Social Security is now on the verge of going into deficit. Our first
responsibility should be to work together to ensure that we keep our
promises to seniors and that Social Security's future is realistic and
fiscally sound."
Still, at the end of the day, he's not willing to state clear opposition to the private accounts idea that he said he'd left behind back in 2000. So Joe, personal feelings aside, is in the Faction. And in any case, it's not like there's not someone to run against him in the primary in 2006. Widely-praised Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal would probably like to get into the big leagues at some point. And in that state, he'd probably win if he knocked Joe out in the primary.
At the end of the day, I figure Lieberman does the right thing on this one. Unlike Feinstein, who voted for the 2001 Deficit-Creation Act (aka Tax Cut), he voted against it. But we'll see.
On the House side, we heard signs from a few different sources today that Rep. Marion Berry of Arkansas may be getting ready to break out of the Faction. Yesterday he told Bloomberg: "The bottom line is the debt and the deficit and the current account deficit are so overpowering that it stands the chance of destroying this country economically ... 'The idea of compounding this by adding 1, 2, 3, 4 trillion dollars to the debt to do this doesn't seem to make sense.''
That sounds like he's saying that the president's new debt-spending spree is a no-go for him. But we'll see. For the moment we haven't seen anything specific on Social Security per se. So he remains in.
As we noted last week, Ron Kind of Wisconsin looks like he's only hanging on in the Faction by a thread.
And, finally, a constituent letter from Rep. Bud Cramer of Alabama seems to put him right at the top of the Faction.
So that leaves us with the current Faction membership list
House
Rep. Marion Berry (D-Ark) (OFO?)
Rep. Allen Boyd (D-FL) (L&P!)
Rep. Robert "Bud" Cramer (D-AL)
Rep. Harold Ford (D-Tenn) (*)
Rep. Ron Kind (D-Wisc) (OFO?)
Rep. James Moran (D-VA) (*)
Rep. Collin Peterson (D-MN)
Rep. Ike Skelton (D-MO) (*)
Rep. Adam Smith (D-WA)
Rep. John Tanner (D-Tenn)
Rep. Gene Taylor (D-Miss)
Senate (note: senate list is roughly in order of relative Faction-hood ...)
Ben Nelson (D-NB)
Dianne Feinstein (D-CA)
Tom Carper of (D-DE)
Evan Bayh (D-IN)
(Say It Ain't So) Joe Lieberman (D-CT)
Associate Members
Gov. Ed Rendell (D-PA) (*)
(ed.note: 'L&P!' designates members who are "Loud and Proud!" in their support of the president's phase-out bill. "OFO?" designates members who may already have "One Foot Out" of the Fainthearted Faction. Linked asterisks (*) note events, statements or stories that have affected a member's position within the Fainthearted Faction.)
--Josh Marshall
Boy, is Atrios right about this. Contrary to what this AP report (and many other articles) says, the emerging Bush proposal doesn't allow younger worker to "invest up to 4 percent of their payroll taxes in private accounts." It allows them, as Atrios says, to divert 4 percentage points of their contribution to their own private account.
Even this, though, while accurate, leaves a misleading impression.
The Social Security portion of the payroll tax amounts to 12.4% of your salary up to about $87,000 annually. The employee kicks in 6.2% and the employer contributes 6.2% as well.
What the president is proposing is that individuals can divert roughly 4 of those 6.2 percentage points into their private investment account.
What percentage would that be of the annual contribution to the Social Security for the given worker? About 30%.
Saying that individual workers are merely taking 2% or now 4% out of their contribution makes it sound like a nominal amount. Just enough to give a trial run to private accounts. The more accurate description -- 30% of their contribution to Social Security -- makes it sound like a much bigger deal.
It's understandable that the White House would prefer the misleading description. But why does the AP and most of the rest of the national press?
Late Update: Here's a follow-up question I wish one of the elect would ask the designated White House leakers. I assume that the employer is still obligated to contribute their 6.2% however much the employee might choose to divert. But is that the case?
--Josh Marshall
A thought: Newspaper article after newspaper article reports that President Bush is going to start cutting the deficit this year and plans to halve it by the end of this term. Yet, at the same time, the White House is also saying that the president plans to borrow roughly two trillion dollars to finance his Social Security phase-out plan. Has anyone thought of connecting these two claims together? It seems obvious on its face that rather than steering the federal government back toward fiscal restraint he actually plans to borrow at rates far beyond what he did in his first term.
And, of course, Cato doesn't mind a bit -- but that's another story.
--Josh Marshall
WaPo on part one of the Bush Social Security plan: cut "benefits by nearly a third in the coming decades."
--Josh Marshall
The Times and the Post weigh in with the backstory on the repeal of the DeLay Rule. It seems they could see they weren't going to be able to keep their troops in line tomorrow after so many of them had gotten an earful from their constituents. (Sort of a stampede to get into the Shays Handful, it seems.) Perhaps that sobriquet change really is in order.
--Josh Marshall
As you know, Rep. Allen Boyd of Florida is now the interim <$NoAd$> Dean of the Fainthearted Faction, pending more information about Rep. Jim Moran's weaseling on the issue. And today we got a hold of the Annual Report he just sent out to constituents.
){kind=link}
Of particular interest to the TPM research department was this section (click the link to see a image of the section) updating voters on his stand on Social Security. What caught our attention was the 2nd and 3rd "basic tenets" which he says will inform his decision-making ...
){kind=link}
Second, there must continue to be a guaranteed benefit that ensures no retiree falls below the poverty level, and third any proposal must be fiscally responsible and not rely on smoke and mirrors to disguise the true cost of saving the system.
Now, first off, does Rep. Boyd really mean that under any new plan Social Security must maintain a "guaranteed benefit" that prevents any retiree from falling below the poverty line? And look at tenet three. Any proposal "must be fiscally responsible." Can any proposal that requires $2 trillion in additional borrowing on top of our existing problem with accumulating national indebtedness be "fiscally responsible"?
I believe the Kolbe bill, which Boyd has signed on to as a co-sponsor, envisions a mix of borrowing, increased payroll taxes (raising the 'cap') and benefit cuts to manage transition costs. So it's probably time for someone to take a close look at the Kolbe bill to see if there's any way Rep. Boyd can square it with his 'tenets'.
--Josh Marshall
Oh, the Agony of Defeat! And DeLay <$NoAd$> too!
Just below you'll see our post on the new batch of Ethics Panel evisceration rules the House Republicans were slated to push through tomorrow. And we were about to report how House Dems were readying to put the Republicans on the hotseat -- particularly the Shays Handful -- by forcing a vote on the DeLay Rule itself.
And now this comes across the AP Wire ...
House Republicans suddenly reversed course Monday, deciding to retain a tough standard for lawmaker discipline and reinstate a rule that would force Majority Leader Tom DeLay to step aside if indicted by a Texas grand jury.The surprise dual decisions were made by Speaker Dennis Hastert and by DeLay — who asked GOP colleagues to undo the extreme act of loyalty they handed him in November. Then, Republicans changed a party rule so DeLay could retain his leadership post if indicted by the grand jury in Austin that charged three of the Texas Republican's associates.
So the DeLay Rule is no more? Can The Hammer remain The Hammer after such an ignominious climb-down? Perhaps, we should be thinking more along the lines of The Mallet? And after all the trouble of getting Republican bankbenchers to walk the plank in support of the thing? We've put some good bit of time into putting together our gallery of DeLay Rule Letter-Writer letters to constituents with all their mannered and far-fetched explanations for why they voted for the thing. And now this? The rug is pulled out of under them?
Oh the humanity ...
--Josh Marshall
With the recent run of ethical abuses by members of the House of Representatives, you'd probably expect that there would be some sort of crackdown. But you'd have to be familiar with the current make-up of the House to suspect that the crackdown would be on the Ethics Committee rather than the body's various malefactors.
First there was the DeLay Rule. This one amounts to a whole Tom DeLay Protection Act of 2005.
Let's get down to details.
As the Washington Post noted last Friday, House Republicans are planning to begin the new session of Congress tomorrow with a wholesale weakening of the ethics rules that govern the House. Perhaps the most important one is the removal of the rule that members of the House "shall conduct himself at all times in a manner that shall reflect creditably on the House."
The rule change was proposed to the House Rules Committee by Reps. Lamar Smith of Texas and Dave Camp of Michigan. Both loyal DeLay soldiers, Smith is a DeLay right-hand-man from back home, who says the "The [current] rules benefit the aggressors who file complaints."
As the Post noted, this provision is that which "has been used to discipline members for taking bribes, fixing parking tickets and having sex with House pages." In other words, it's the rule that covers all the various sorts of sleaze that aren't specifically enumerated in the House code -- sort of the inverse of the constitution's 'necessary and proper' clause. (After all, wouldn't it be fun to have the House ethics code says 1a. Members shall not fornicate with House pages. 1b. Members shall not give a C note to House staff to ignore visits to office by call-girls ...' You get the idea.) You might just call it the Sleaze Rule.
Perhaps more to the point, it formed the basis of the Ethics Committee's multiple 'admonishments' last year of Tom DeLay.
The GOP caucus could see as well as anyone that something had to be wrong when the Majority Leader was cited again and again for unethical behavior. So in characteristic form, they repealed the rule under which he was cited.
One person who thinks this is a bad idea is Joel Hefley of Colorado, the Chairman of the Ethics Committee and perhaps better known to you as a member of the Shays Handful.
According to this morning's CQ Today, he's told aides he opposes the changes -- particularly that to the aforementioned Sleaze Rule -- plans to speak out against the change tomorrow on the House floor before the change comes to a vote. And he said the following in a written statement: "This is not the way to effect meaningful reform. Ethics reform must be bipartisan and this package is not bipartisan. If the House is to have a meaningful, bipartisan ethics process, changes of this magnitude can be made - as they were made in 1997 and 1989 - only after thoughtful, careful consi