Downright <$NoAd$> criminal.

Just out from the Times ...

Over the objections of many of its own employees, the Social Security Administration is gearing up for a major effort to publicize the financial problems of Social Security and to convince the public that private accounts are needed as part of any solution.

The agency's plans are set forth in internal documents, including a "tactical plan" for communications and marketing of the idea that Social Security faces dire financial problems requiring immediate action.

Social Security officials say the agency is carrying out its mission to educate the public, including more than 47 million beneficiaries, and to support the agenda of President Bush.

But agency employees have complained to Social Security officials that they are being conscripted into a political battle over the future of the program. They question the accuracy of recent statements by the agency, and they say that money from the Social Security trust fund should not be used for such advocacy.

They transgress every limit, every rule. Now the Armstrong Williams episode turns out to have been just a blip on the radar, a faint premonition. Your payroll taxes and the whole edifice of the Social Security Administration is being joined to Karl Rove's outside astroturf groups pushing the Social Security phase-out. Or, I guess you could say that your payroll taxes are being used to cheat you out of what you've spent the last decade or two or three paying them for.

Gives a whole new meaning to raiding the Trust Fund.

The White House is intent on making this into a fight about what the country is. So the battle is joined.

Here's the page the Social Security Administration says to use if you have a complaint.

How does Senator McCain feel about this? Congressman Leach? Senators Chafee and Specter and Snowe?

One more thought: As we've tried to show in the last few days, when you dig down into the Social Security Administration website you find a wealth of information which directly contradicts the lies coming out of the White House. How much longer you figure that stuff's going to stay there? Perhaps some handy folks should start doing some quick site archiving. Call it the Memory Hole Project.

The latest from TPM False Equivalence Watch ^(TM).

Today from CBS News ...

Is there a Social Security crisis? Mr. Bush says yes, the Democrats say no. They say the system as is can deliver the promised benefits until at least 2042. And they say minor revenue increases and benefits made soon can safeguard Social Security for much longer. They say the "crisis" is made up so the administration can start experimenting with private Social Security accounts.

And THAT, the Democrats say, is a crisis. They believe the administration’s proposal to offer optional, voluntary private accounts would start an inexorable avalanche on the slippery slope of privatizing Social Security, of taking away government guaranteed payments to old people. They think it’s an evil plot by evil-doers. A crisis. That’s their crisis-mongering.

On the facts, the Democrats are right to say that Social Security doesn’t pose an immediate crisis. But in defining the issues supporting an aging population so narrowly, the Democrats are every bit as disingenuous as the administration. When you put Social Security on top of Medicare, on top of rising medical costs and in the context of a shrinking workforce and expanding elderly population, you have something pretty close to a crisis. But it’s not one either party is talking much about.

Nice try.

Let's address two points. If President Bush is whipping up a phony crisis, as he did during the lead up to Iraq, to shred the social safety net which has made poverty among the elderly close to a thing of the past and provides financial security in the face <$Ad$> of premature death, disability and other blows of fate at other points in life, that's a bad thing that should be fought at every opportunity. Opposing it simply cannot be put on the same moral footing as perpetrating it.

On the other hand, if the Democrats are wrong, and there really is a dire crisis, which they are ignoring for political reasons, then they're in the wrong.

The point is that you cannot duck the moral question by ignoring the factual question, which is what the author seems intent on doing in this case, thus creating the standard 'they all do it' moral equivalence.

Then there's the issue of Medicare and spiralling health care costs. The funding challenges facing Medicare really are far more acute than those facing Social Security. But they are also qualitatively different. For all the demographic challenges facing Social Security, the costs it is meant to cover are fundamentally stable -- factored against inflation. What are they? Rents, food, the basic costs of living, etc. It is in the case of health care where, for all the arguments about frivolous lawsuits or greedy drug companies, we face the basic 'problem' of an expanding array life-saving and life-extending technologies that cost money.

But Medicare and health care costs are a different and in many respects distinct issue. The fact that the president lies about Social Security while ignoring the more pressing challenges facing Medicare should be marked against him, not the Democrats.

And in any case, what sense does it make to pillory those who deny Social Security is in crisis just because when you combine it together with a bunch of other issues, which are in some ways related, all of them together may almost constitute a crisis? This is rather like saying, Iraq is no crisis. But when you combine Iraq with North Korea and Iran, non-state-terrorism, a possible global resource shortage in the next century and global warming, all together it's pretty close to a crisis.

Maybe so. But who cares? It's a non-sequitur. The president has forced a debate on Social Security -- not the long-term fiscal outlook of the country or rising health care costs. And while Social Security, as a major government expense, is related to both, the program's structure -- which is what President Bush wants changed -- is distinct from each. And if all that weren't enough the president's proposals don't address this broader array of problems -- at least not anymore than abolishing Social Security clears up problems tied to its funding.

It is almost as if the author cannot get himself to bite the factual bullet of who's crisis mongering and who's not. So he cobbles together another crisis to make up for the insufficiencies of the one the president is flogging in order to find one the Democrats are ignoring, even though this debate and changes to this program are what the president is forcing on the country.

A pretty decent account of the dishonesty of President Bush's Social Security 'crisis' fear-mongering from MSNBC.

If you're up on the subject, the details may not surprise you. But the source may.

Here is a graceful and concise summary from Paul Starr of The American Prospect of what Social Security provides for American society and what the president's phase-out option never can.

From The Hill ("Centrists steer clear of Social Security plans") ...

“Republicans need moderate Democrats to be a part of this process to get cover,” the Senate GOP aide said. “If there are no Democrats who are going to come across here, you may have some revolt within the Republicans.”

Exactly.

Any Rhode Islanders out there?

As I've mentioned once or twice in the past I lived in Providence, Rhode Island from 1992 to 1997, loved it, and still have a special fondness for the place. (Strange, but true TPM trivia: When I was a graduate student at Brown in the mid-1990s I did web design to supplement my essentially non-existent income. In 1996, when Sen. Jack Reed (D) first ran for Senate I got his campaign to let me design his campaign website -- for free, of course.)

In any case, this isn't a walk down memory lane. I ask because of that other Rhode Island senator, Republican Senator Lincoln Chafee. Chafee is in our Conscience Caucus because of a statement he made last month about the president's Social Security phase-out bill, and even more because of his demonstrated record of bucking the president on major policy initiatives like the 2001 tax cut bill, which twelve senate Dems voted for. If there was one Senate Republican I'd figure was most likely to go against the president on phasing-out Social Security, it's Lincoln Chafee.

But as near as I can tell he hasn't told his constituents any more about his views on the phase-out bill for the last month or more. Even back then all he said about the it was that "it's the wrong time and I regret that we're looking at this in the context of huge deficits."

I would imagine that either the Projo (aka, the Providence Journal-Bulletin, the major paper in the state) or a few of his million or sp constituents could prevail upon him to provide a little more detail about where he stands on phasing out Social Security and replacing with private investment accounts.

Republicans from the Chafee family have a charmed life in Rhode Island, notwithstanding the state's ocean blue politics. But that's largely because even as the state's politics have diverged so sharply from the national Republican party, Chafee and his late father let Rhode Islanders have it both ways. They have a Republican in Washington; but one that seldom gets much out of step with the state on key issues.

Social Security, though, is a pretty defining issue, and one that I'd expect many of the senator's constituents care a lot about. As I say, I suspect, in the end, Sen. Chafee won't support the president's phase-out plan. But here's the thing: by keeping mum and cagey about his position now, especially during this early, crucial phase of the debate, he may actually doing a lot to make a Social Security phase-out a reality. On the other hand, stating his position early and clearly might go almost as far toward saving Social Security as eventual vote against the president's bill. It could even be more important.

The New York Sun, December 2nd, 2004: "Yet another [senator] with perceived presidential ambitions, Senator Santorum of Pennsylvania, is viewed as potentially the most effective White House point man on the [Social Security] issue, in part because he has been a staunch supporter of accounts but does not have his own bill or a personal stake in a particular proposal. 'He has spoken out since his days in the House and has run two senatorial campaigns that talked about reform in a swing state - and lived to tell about it,' Mr. John said."

Does he still want to be point-man?

We've been trying to find public statements from the senator on the president's Social Security phase-out plan. And they're really hard to find over the last six or seven weeks. There's no question he still supports it: here's the statement of support on his website. We just can't find many recent statements.

Statement of Michael K. Powell, FCC Chairman: "In response to recent reports regarding potential violations of the "payola" and sponsorship identification provisions of the Communications Act, I have instructed the Enforcement Bureau to open two investigations: One into issues regarding commentator Armstrong Williams; and the other into issues regarding station WKSE (FM), Niagara Falls, New York, licensed a subsidiary of Entercom Communications Corporation. These provisions govern disclosure and sponsorship identification regarding payments or other consideration in connection with broadcast programs."

The Sibel Edmonds story has rattled through the alternative press for quite a long time now, only occasionally bubbling up into the mainstream media. But today she enlisted a new supporter, one which carries a good bit of weight -- the Justice Department's Office of Inspector General.

In a just-released unclassified summary of their report into her allegations, the IG concluded that while not all of her allegations could be substantiated, "we believe that many of her allegations were supported, that the FBI did not take them seriously enough, and that her allegations were, in fact, the most significant factor in the FBI's decision to terminate her services."

Rep. Aderholt (R) of Alabama <$NoAd$> says president is "sort of" lying?

Aderholt agrees with reform critics who say Social Security is not in crisis. Aderholt said he believes reform is needed, but there is no reason to rush the reform effort.

"It's sort of deceiving when we talk about the situation being that we are on the brink of disaster. We're not. It will be several decades before the system goes bankrupt," Aderholt said.

Aderholt worries that political rhetoric designed to push legislation through Congress will scare his retired constituents.

See the rest from the Decatur Daily.

We're hearing from many readers across the country who are calling or writing to their representatives and senators only to hear that they can't make any public comment because the president hasn't released his plan yet.

"The staffer I talked to this afternoon in Senator [blank]'s office," says one reader, "told me that they had been waiting to go public because they didn't have a concrete proposal to respond to."

Please.

This sort of mumbojumbo might have some logic from a Republican up for reelection next year who's trying to be as cautious as possible. But why would any Democrat -- like the recently-reelected senator from the Northwest whose office the reader contacted -- be saying something so foolish? The White House has its own reasons for pretending they haven't decided on a specific plan yet. But why do the president's opponents have to pretend that that's really true?

Everybody in the country who's paying any attention to this debate knows the essence of the president's plan -- he wants to replace a portion of Social Security with private investment accounts. How he fudges the numbers on the cost side or deals with benefit cuts remains a bit muddled. But the fundamental point is as clear as day.

So why should any senator or representative be waiting one minute to make their position clear, unless he or she is seriously entertaining the idea of voting for the president's plan?

How many details of an upper-income-earner tax hike do most Republicans need to see before they're willing to say they oppose it?

Yeah, that's my sense too.

To be cagey like this is not only a disservice, even a dishonesty, to constituents, it's also the height of foolishness for any lawmaker who really cares about preserving Social Security and not letting the president end the program.

Senator Olympia Snowe (R) of Maine, from this morning's Press Herald: "I don't think there's any consensus on what the problem [with Social Security] is or the extent of the problem. I have serious concerns about undermining the fundamental principles of the Social Security Trust Fund."

It looks like Rep. Gene Taylor of Mississippi really is on the way out of the Faction.

In this morning's Sun Herald, Taylor's policy director Brian Martin is quoted as saying, "Congressman Taylor doesn't support forming private accounts. Social Security is in a better financial position than anything else in the government. It actually collects more money than it spends."

We assume Rep. Taylor is still overseas (see last night's post). And we'd like to see a statement from the man himself before striking his name from the Faction roll. But it seems now like it's just a matter of time.

Steve Soto has some thoughts on countering the White House's Social Security phase-out game-plan.

Two perspectives <$NoAd$> ...

"[Social Security] has fulfilled the promise announced by President Franklin Roosevelt -– providing vital income to millions of seniors, and assuring generations of working people that their retirement years would have some decent measure of security ... a just society ensures that elderly people can grow old with dignity. For that reason our nation established the Social Security system. And that is why, after 70 years, Social Security remains a fundamental commitment of both our political parties."

Vice President Dick Cheney
Catholic University of America
January 13th, 2005

"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."

Peter H. Wehner
Deputy Assistant to the President
Office of Strategic Initiatives
"Some Thoughts on Social Security"
January 3rd, 2005

Two perspectives.

Why hasn't more attention been given to this passage from Paul Krugman's column from earlier this week ...

Even with the most favorable assumptions, the benefits of privatization wouldn't kick in until most of the baby boomers were long gone. For the next 45 years, privatization would cost much more money than it saved.

Advocates of privatization almost always pretend that all we have to do is borrow a bit of money up front, and then the system will become self-sustaining. The Wehner memo talks of borrowing $1 trillion to $2 trillion "to cover transition costs." Similar numbers have been widely reported in the news media.

But that's just the borrowing over the next decade. Privatization would cost an additional $3 trillion in its second decade, $5 trillion in the decade after that and another $5 trillion in the decade after that. By the time privatization started to save money, if it ever did, the federal government would have run up around $15 trillion in extra debt.

These numbers are based on a Congressional Budget Office analysis of Plan 2, which was devised by a special presidential commission in 2001 and is widely expected to be the basis for President Bush's plan.

No doubt, the work of the <$NoAd$> Bush-bashers at CBO ...

Late Update: Reps. Spratt and Hoyer are now on the case.

Is Fainthearted Faction member Rep. Gene Taylor going to follow Rep. Adam Smith out of the Faction?

I exchanged emails today with a staffer in Rep. Taylor's office. And that's the impression I got.

First, the staffer told me that for Taylor, a vote against the Filner Amendment was not a vote for privatization.

"Mr. Taylor does believe that the annual Social Security surpluses should be invested in real assets rather than Treasury IOUs that enable more deficit spending," the staffer told me, "but he does not support investment in the stock market. In fact, he was one of only two Democrats who voted against the Railroad Retirement reform bill that passed on July 31, 2001, because he did not buy the argument that the system could reduce the amounts paid in by the railroads and increase the fund assets by investing in the stock market."

(I have to confess that I was immediately out of my league when we got to talking about the Railroad Retirement reform bill. But let's just keep that between you and me.)

Apparently Rep. Taylor is overseas this week on Armed Service Committee business. But the staffer told me that Taylor's office would likely be posting a statement on their website about the president's Social Security phase-out plan in the near future.

From the San Mateo County Times: "University of California, Berkeley, law student Chris Busselle, his wife and his longtime friend didn't realize they were catching a tiger by the tail when they brainstormed ways to keep Democratic morale and activism high after President Bush was re-elected and Republican Congressional majorities widened. They decided to start a Web site, www.thinkblue2008.com, on which they would sell blue rubber bracelets — like the popular yellow "Livestrong" bands hawked by cycling champion Lance Armstrong's foundation for cancer patients — bearing the next presidential election's date and an admonition to 'Think Blue.'"

Not a big surprise. But just for the record: Sen. Jon Corzine's opinion column denouncing the president's Social Security phase-out bill.

Two perspectives <$NoAd$> ...

"Young workers who elect personal accounts can expect to receive a far higher rate of return on their money than the current system could ever afford to pay them."

Vice President Dick Cheney
Catholic University of America
January 13th, 2005

"Calculations of the median voter’s return from “investing” in Social Security suggest that for a majority of voters the U.S. Social Security system provides higher ex-post, or actual, returns than alternative assets."

Vincenzo Galasso
Social Security Bulletin
(The quarterly research journal
of the Social Security Administration)
Vol. 64 • No. 2 • 2001/2002

[A note of thanks to TPM reader BK.]

Is it troubling at all that this paragraph, the third in a piece tomorrow's Post, appears to be the White House's own description of how they'll sell their Social Security <$NoAd$> phase-out plan?

The campaign will use Bush's campaign-honed techniques of mass repetition, never deviating from the script and using the politics of fear to build support -- contending that a Social Security financial crisis is imminent when even Republican figures show it is decades away.

Hmmm.

Sen. Wayne Allard of Colorado has an interesting approach to the Social Security and the Trust Fund.

He says that the US government will simply go into default and never <$NoAd$> pay the money back.

You'd think that would make some news.

From today's Greeley Tribune ...

"I believe we have a problem with Social Security that will emerge in 2018," he said. "At that point in time, Social Security pay out will be more than what is in the fund put in by working people or employers."

Allard said there are no reserves in Social Security because what is there is automatically transferred into the general fund, leaving a debt of $28 trillion. But he doesn't believe the money will ever be repaid to the fund.

"The money is spent," he said. "I don't believe in my own opinion we'll be able to raise the funds to pay it back."

Do other Republicans think default is the solution? Does the president?

And since the portion of our national debt owed to the Social Security Trust Fund makes up (I believe) less than a third of our total debt, are we going to default on the rest of those bonds too?

From a press release just out from Sen. Harry Reid's leadership office: "Senator Harry Reid (D-NV) today joined James Roosevelt Jr., grandson of President Franklin Delano Roosevelt, in calling on the group Progress for America Inc. to cease running its latest television ad, which misleadingly features photos of President Roosevelt in its pitch for Social Security privatization. As James Roosevelt Jr. writes in his letter to Progress for America, 'to compare the courage it took to provide a guaranteed insurance program for our seniors and the disabled to the courage it will take to dismantle the most successful social program in history is simply unconscionable.'”

Before the Storm: "There is a lot of misinformation and misstatements out there. There is not one single plan that cuts benefits for today's seniors ... In my plan I don't cut benefits and I don't raise taxes. There is no way the Congress or the president is going to approve a plan that cuts benefits."

Rep. Clay Shaw of Florida, last night back home in the 22nd District.

Later Shaw made clear he wouldn't support any bill that cut future benefits for "our children and grandchildren."

Rep. Mike Castle of <$NoAd$> Delaware answers some phase-out questions from Human Events Online ...

As a leader of moderate Republicans, do you agree with President Bush's assessment that a payroll tax increase should be ruled out to help pay for Social Security reform?

REP. MIKE CASTLE (R.-DEL.): First of all, I don't rule in or out anything at this point. My own judgment is that this is an extremely complex problem, and I'm not 100% sure, or I'm not sure at all, that we should have any privatization in this area.

Do you favor personal retirement accounts?

CASTLE: I do not know the answer to that either. I've never embraced them one way or another, and I want to totally understand that. I think there's some merit to it and there's some problems with it.

Do you think other moderates share your views?

CASTLE: I don't know. We haven't had a lot of extensive discussions about it. Now, I will tell you that [Arizona Rep.] Jim Kolbe (R.) is one of the advocates for it and he's a moderate. So the answer's not 100% of the moderates oppose it, so it's hard for me to judge. I think you ask the right question, though. It's more likely in the moderate camp that you'll find people may have opposition to this.

Doesn't sound like Rep. Castle is sure of much of anything when it comes to Social Security. For the moment, though, we're sure he's in the Conscience Caucus.

The Republican Jewish Coalition joins the ranks of organizations running ads in favor of the president's Social Security phase-out plan ...

The Republican Jewish Coalition announces the launch of an advertising campaign in support of President Bush’s proposal to reform Social Security. Beginning the week of January 17th, the RJC will run full-page ads in major Jewish newspapers around the country as well as in Roll Call, a Washington, DC newspaper widely read by the White House, member of Congress, their staffs, and other leading policy-makers and opinion leaders.

The ads support the President’s proposal for allowing young families to voluntarily invest part of their Social Security contribution, while maintaining the current benefits for those on Social Security or nearing retirement. Social Security is headed for bankruptcy.

Whether it fails completely in 15 years or 40 years, there will come a day when it will no longer be possible for Social Security to provide full benefits to retirees. Raising Social Security taxes or cutting benefits will delay that failure, but will not prevent it.

Fails completely in 15 years? Even the president doesn't fib that bad.

What would Bubbe <$NoAd$> say?

TPM needs your eyeballs!

No, no, no, we don't want the actual balls. Or, we need them. But we don't need you to take them out of your head or anything.

What we need is for you to put them to use for us.

Here at TPM we're trying to track more than five hundred representatives and senators to find out what they're saying about the Social Security phase-out debate. Not just what they say to the Post's editors or to Wolf Blitzer, but everywhere. What do the local papers say? What shows up on the wires? What are they telling constituents?

Even with all the staffers here in the TPM newsroom, that's an impossible task for us to do alone.

If you see Republicans who seem like they might be bailing on the president or Democrats who look like they might be bailing on Social Security, let us know. Send us the newspaper citation or the web link. Whatever you can point us to, drop us a line.

And that's not all.

Tell us about the reporters. As we're already seeing, many reporters -- either through a mistaken understanding of journalistic objectivity or simple laziness -- are taking demonstrable falsehoods coming out of the White House and either presenting them as fact or simply repeating them as one side of the argument.

We can cover a lot of ground, but obviously not all of it. But you can. If you see examples of egregriously bad reporting or just plain-old-fashioned journalistic inattention to fact, let us know. Give us the details.

The Pope supports private accounts?

VP <$NoAd$> Dick Cheney a couple of hours ago wading into the Social Security phase-out debate ...

As a nation we recognize, as Pope John Paul II has written, that a fully human civilization shows respect and love for the elderly. And a just society ensures that elderly people can grow old with dignity. For that reason our nation established the Social Security system. And that is why, after 70 years, Social Security remains a fundamental commitment of both our political parties.

We will need that bipartisan commitment in the months ahead -- and I believe we will find it. There are strong views on both sides of the aisle, and we should not expect the work to be easy. Yet if we all go forward in good faith, we will uphold a great duty -- keeping the promise of Social Security far into the future and giving millions of seniors, today and tomorrow, the dignity, security, and peace of mind they deserve.

Don't worry, we'll be going over this one with a fine tooth comb. After all, it's Cheney, right?

More industry fall-out from Ketchum's participation in the Bush administration's government-funded political campaigns (the Armstrong Williams deal, et al.).

This just out from PR Week ...

Sloane & Company CEO Elliot Sloane withdrew his agency's membership in the Council of PR Firms Wednesday following Council president Kathy Cripps' comments defending Ketchum in a New York Times story.

"The reaction of the Council... disappointed me, because I would expect that the trade organization that represents our industry would be more forceful in talking about guidelines, roles and responsibilities, and ethics," Sloane said.

In the Times article published Wednesday, Cripps said that Ketchum's contract to promote the "No Child Left Behind" act by paying a commentator $240,000 did not violate the Council's code of ethics because the onus for full disclosure rested on Armstrong Williams, not the agency.

By contrast, PRSA president Judith Phair called Ketchum's situation "a shame, disturbing and harmful."

Even Armstrong Williams won't <$NoAd$> defend it. What's this PR Council's deal?

We told you yesterday afternoon that The New Republic's Ryan Lizza had something in the works and here it is.

In Lizza's new piece about the Dems' get-tough stance on opposing President Bush's Social Security phase-out bill, he sat down with Fainthearted Faction member Rep. Adam Smith of Washington, who told him ...

"Social Security is a safety net. That's what it's there for. It's there to be the safest portion of your portfolio. It's a guaranteed benefit for a reason, and, for that reason, I don't support private accounts ... I think there is broad consensus among New Democrats that you must not privatize the system."

Make that, ex-Fainthearted Faction member Rep. Adam Smith of Washington.

It's always such a pleasure to strike another good Democrat from the list.

See the newly-revised Faction list here.

For all the work he put into becoming the Chairman of the House Fainthearted Faction, Rep. Allen Boyd sure is pretty close-lipped about his accomplishments.

Over at his website, the pull-down menu for "AB on the Issues" has Homeland Security, Iraq, Budget, Medicare/Prescription Drugs, Prescription Drug Discount Card, Education, Farm Policy, Armed Forces, Veterans, Election Reform, and Economy. But no Social Security. Nothing. Actually, I can't find anything on the subject on his site at all. You'd barely know he was in the Faction, let alone the chairman.

If you can find anything on Social Security on Boyd's website, please let me know.

He's not out of the Faction yet. But he's awfully close.

From what we'd gleaned in news reports and from his communications with constituents, Alabama's Bud Cramer looked like he might be the president's best bet after Rep. Allen Boyd to go along with a Social Security phase-out bill.

But an article by Shelby G. Spires in this morning's Huntsville Times sure paints a different picture.

"I do not support (Bush's Social Security plan) in its current form at all, and I would have to see a lot of details to convince me ... There's not enough substance to the White House's proposal that would show how this will work."

Cramer, says the Times, "won't rule out working with the Bush administration on the issue, but cautioned that it would have to be a different plan."

Further down into the piece Cramer expresses concerns about current retirees, tax and spending issues, and what the administration would do if the stock market went south. He never expresses clear opposition to a private-accounts-based phase-out plan, as such, and he's left the door open for the president.

But he seems a lot less likely to side with the president today than he did yesterday.

It took us a while. And we had to work through the by-laws of the Fainthearted Faction as well as the methodological guidelines our jury has developed. But after careful consideration and some argument we've decided that Sen. Dianne Feinstein of California should be removed from the Fainthearted Faction.

As you probably recall, on January 7th, Sen. Feinstein issued a statement to the press in which she said: "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."

Now, there was some question and controversy over whether the second clause of the first sentence qualified or merely elaborated on the first. And there were some related questions raised about the precise meaning of the second sentence.

In the end, though, we decided not to be overly talmudic about the matter. So while a very lawyerly interpretation of Feinstein's statement might still reveal some latent Faintheartedness, we've decided that the general thrust of her statement, along with this reference to her opposition in the San Francisco Chronicle, warrants her removal.

You can see the newly updated Fainthearted Faction roll here, as well as the updated roll of the Conscience Caucus, which has a new addition.

Two sets of information that will be worth connecting.

Last week Ruy Teixeira posted a list of twenty-five "high-risk Republican districts" --- "Colorado 7; Connecticut 2, 4, and 5; Delaware AL; Florida 10 and 22; Illinois 10; Iowa 1 and 2; Kentucky 3; Nevada 3; New Hampshire 2; New Jersey 2, 3, and 4; New Mexico 1; New York 3, 13, and 25; Pennsylvania 6, 7, 8, and 15; and Washington 8."

Then there's this page at the Social Security Administration website we brought to your attention yesterday which provides extremely detailed information on the size and demographic profile of Social Security recipients by congressional district.

Late Update: I spoke too soon. Or, rather, I guess, too late. Steve Soto's already put together the whole thing.

Another shoe to drop in the New Hampshire phone-jamming scandal? Where'd the perps get the money?

Another red-state member of Congress <$NoAd$>signs in to the Conscience Caucus: Rep. Shelley Moore Capito of West Virginia.

From Thursday's Herald-Dispatch ...

The state’s lone Republican member of Congress said no one solution exists for reforming Social Security.

Congresswoman Shelley Moore Capito expressed those thoughts during a Wednesday afternoon meeting with The Herald-Dispatch editorial board. The hour-long discussion covered an array of issues including Iraq, the economy and Social Security reform.

Capito said there are no easy fixes for Social Security and that she has not committed to any one solution, including President George Bush’s privatization plan that includes personal savings accounts.

"I have said that I would look at that as possible solution for a younger worker on a voluntary basis, but I don’t know if that’s the solution," she said. "I’m not in one camp or in another, but I think if we don’t face this now, we’re going to face it down the road."

The third-term Congresswoman was unsure when or if any final Social Security reform would pass both the House and Senate.

"There are a lot of proposals out on the table, and I’ve said repeatedly I will look at fixes to the problem, but I’m not going to be looking at a fix that will raise our taxes, that will lower our benefits and that will raise our retirement age," she said.

Sounds like she's on the fence, Karl.

Is Grassley iffy?

Here's a report by Matt Kelley from the RadioIowa website ...

Iowa Senator Chuck Grassley is negotiating with members of both parties to find a way to keep Social Security afloat without cutting benefits or raising the retirement age. After a one-on-one meeting last week with President Bush on the subject, Grassley says he's working with the administration and other members of Congress to find a solution that'll succeed. Grassley, a republican, says he can't yet reveal details of his proposal. Grassley says "If I do, it's kinda' like showing your hand too early. It's a negotiating process and I think we need to just reserve judgment on almost every aspect of it. Tax increase or no tax increase. Private accounts or no private accounts." President Bush hosts a forum at the White House today on Social Security. It will include people from several generations talking about troubles in the system. Grassley says there's no easy fix. Grassley says "There's just dozens of moving parts and it's not so much what you're for or against but how does doing something over here effect something someplace else in the equation." Grassley, chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, says he's treading carefully in the Social Security reform negotiations. Grassley calls it the "most politically-sensitive issue we can deal with ever" and he's trying to remain flexible. President Bush says Social Security will go broke by the time Baby Boomers retire, but critics says it should stay afloat well into the middle of this century and they accuse Bush of exaggerating the problems.

And here's a report from the field <$NoAd$> from TPM reader Susan N. ...

In a meeting yesterday in Charles City, many of the questions were about Social Security. Senator Grassley did not take a position, citing a need to remain open-minded because of his position on the Finance Committee. He did recite the demographics in support of the argument that Something Must Be Done, but declined to say what he thought the Something should be. I heard: keeping the powder dry until the constituents weigh in. He's doing a bunch of meetings this week in Iowa, he says. This guy is as conservative as they come, but a very savvy politician. Lots of his constituents are older, and he has been strong on cleaning up nursing homes and other issues that affect them. In response to questions about immigration and something Vicente Fox supposedly said, Grassley said that the good news is that Vicente Fox doesn't have a vote in Congress. The questioner pointed out Bush's support of amnesty for certain illegal immigrants, and Grassley muttered that Bush doesn't have a vote in Congress either, to much laughter. It's not just Democrats we need to work on. Lots of us blue people live in red states with conservative representatives who have doubts about the wisdom of private accounts.

Indeed.

Sen. Tim Johnson of South Dakota: "The scheme adjusts benefit levels based on consumer price indexing rather than wage indexing. This would leave beneficiaries with a smaller annual cost of living adjustment, or COLA, at a time when Medicare premiums are skyrocketing at nearly 17 percent per year. These changes and the resulting benefit cuts would apply to everyone, even people who chose not to set up a private account. Such a plan essentially results in a steep 'retirement tax' on all seniors. Such a plan is not 'reform' and it will not 'strengthen' Social Security."

The Financial Times analyzes the Senate Faction.

From the Yankton Press & Dakotan, Sen. Tim Johnson's opinion column opposing President Bush's Social Security phase-out bill.

Harold Meyerson: "The fabricated crisis is the hallmark of the Bush presidency."

As Hillel might have said, all the rest is commentary. But good commentary.

Doris Matsui (D-CA) announces decision to seek election to her late husband's House seat in California's 5th congressional district.

"I am asking those who supported him to now support me."

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has set March 8th as election day. If no candidate garners more than 50% of the vote a second round will be held on May 3rd.

We're all hip to push-polls and other strategies for below-the-radar advocacy. But perhaps the Social Security phase-out agenda provides a new and ready-made technique.

Many companies have benefits providers who have regular contact with quite a few individual employees. Today, for instance, I received a copy of a flyer posted around one firm letting everyone know about an upcoming special presentation on the Social Security 'crisis' for the benefit of the company's employees.

The presentation is being put on by a representative from a certain financial services company.

The flyer reads "Social Security ... Find out: How it works, Why it is in crisis What to expect."

Of course, there's also details with date and time and even the munchies that they'll serve. You can even get an individual consultation if you want, it says -- no doubt to tell you that the Social Security Administration is set to auto-destruct and that anyone who thinks they'll ever collect a Social Security benefit is certifiably insane.

Have you seen flyers like this showing up at your work place?

Coming soon: Below-the-radar Social Security phase-out advocacy by corporate benefits providers?

Cato Update: Earlier today we reported that the Cato website lists Rep. Harold Ford as giving the luncheon address on day two of the Social Security conference that they are holding on February 8th and 9th. The congressman's office tells TPM that the congressman actually declined Cato's invitation sometime last week.

We note that a revised program now posted on the Cato website lists Edward Prescott as giving that speech.

Alright, ya heard it here first. I hear that The New Republic's Ryan Lizza is about to escort someone on Capitol Hill right outta the Fainthearted Faction. Their new issue hits the web tomorrow. So we should know more then.

Vermont radio station dumps Rush for Air America.

Steve Clemons latest in the escalating Clemons-Frum smackfest over <$NoAd$> Iraq ...

David Frum responds to yesterday's post on Brent Scowcroft and a possible Iraqi civil war with a supercilious and I think incorrect commentary on the fine differences between the words 'incipient' and 'imminent'.

I'll let the linguists out there be the judge of who has the better part of that lexical exercise. Bill Safire could have some fun with this. But the last time David and his friends played fast and loose with the word 'imminent', it cost us more than a thousand American lives -- and counting.

So when it comes to that word it's my policy to keep him and his crew on short leash.

Ouch ...

Hillary tells the president, No Dice, when it comes to a Social Security phase-out.

In a letter the New York senator is now sending out to constituents who ask her position on Social Security, she writes "I oppose diverting money from the Social Security program to establish private accounts."

Now, don't get me wrong. I doubt there was ever much chance Hillary was going to end up on the wrong side of this issue. But an article that is running today in CQ shows why it's important, even for those like Senator Clinton, to make the point crystal clear.

Here's the beginning of the piece and then a section further down on Senator Clinton's position ...

Three prominent Democrats are making clear they will not support President Bush’s proposal to divert some Social Security payroll taxes into personal retirement accounts, dealing the administration a setback as it engages in a campaign to build public support for an overhaul.

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y., is sending letters to constituents who ask about her position on the president’s proposal stating: “I oppose diverting money from the Social Security program to establish private accounts.”

...

Advocates of the president’s plan had held out hope that Clinton might eventually be convinced to support creating personal accounts in Social Security. She is one of the most famous people in Congress; her national profile and popularity is such that she is considered the undeclared front-runner for the Democratic presidential nomination in 2008. And she has made vague statements in the past saying Social Security should be “strengthened,” although she has not wedded herself to a solution.

Her letter should remove any doubts about her position. In it, she described the president’s proposal as “harmful to Americans” if enacted and said: “I am profoundly worried about the effect this proposal would have on New Yorkers who rely on Social Security.”

The piece in CQ notes the newly-stated opposition of Clinton as well as that of Senators Kennedy and Johnson. As CQ notes, "Each of the three senators who announced their opposition to Bush’s plan this week represents unique problems for the president[, though] Clinton’s statement is probably most significant."

Hillary's opposition, they explain, means the president will have neither of the New York senators, who represent Wall Street on his side. (On the other hand, plenty of Wall Streeters commute in from Connecticut. And the president clearly thinks Fainthearted Faction member Joe Lieberman's vote is still in play.) Kennedy's opposition sets a tone of Democratic conscience and history. And Johnston's stance makes clear that a senator from a very red state -- one that just turned out a senate minority leader -- doesn't have to feel the need to run scared on an issue like Social Security.

Indeed, quite the opposite. As I think we'll see increasingly over the next few months, making a tough and unabashed defense of Social Security gives senators like Johnson a chance to show that they are standing with their constituents' values and their material interests while President Bush is attacking both. (You can see Johnson's statement from yesterday on his website here.) We'll have to wait and see if Senator Landrieu gets the word.

Republican Rep. Jim Ramstad of Minnesota on the current state of the president's Social Security phase-out bill.

“Right now, to be very candid with you, we don’t have broad Republican support let alone bipartisan support for [President Bush's] plan that was outlined during the campaign.”

And could it happen this year?

“It could. But uhhh … Y’know, and the Vikings could win the Super Bowl this year. I mean the chances are not 50-50, let me be honest with you.”

The quotes come from Rep. Ramstad's interview on Minnesota Public Radio Monday morning.

(ed.note: If you're interested in listening yourself, the quotes come at 30:18 and 34:14 in the recording.)

The Social Security phase-out push-polls begin?

Note to who's behind "Progress for America", the big anti-Social Security astroturf group -- none other than Tony Feather and Tom Synhorst, the Johny Appleseed of GOP astroturf operators.

Ford fixin' for a showdown with the folks at Cato?

The last we heard of Fainthearted Faction member Rep. Harold Ford of Tennessee, he was telling us that whatever the Cato Institute might think or be telling others, he didn't support their Social Security phase-out plan. "I do not support changing the Social Security system as has been proposed by President Bush," he said in a statement released on December 30th, "nor do I support Social Security proposals advanced by the CATO Institute. In fact, both of these proposals have the potential to harm current beneficiaries by paying for the transition costs by issuing debt."

Now, we notice, though, that Rep. Ford is listed as giving the luncheon address on day two of the Cato Institute's "Social Security: The Opportunity for Real Reform" conference on February 8th and 9th.

We think it's great that Ford is taking this opportunity to give them a piece of his mind.

Late Update: We note that the program says 'invited' by his name. So has Ford even accepted the invite?

Even Later Update: Late this afternoon Rep. Ford's office informed TPM that the congressman is actually not delivering this speech, and that he declined Cato's invitation last week. See this subsequent post for the details.

Does Rep. Mark Foley of Florida have something he wants to <$NoAd$> tell us?

A few clips ...

AP, December 22nd, 2004 ...

"To be crassly political, there's nothing in it for members of Congress," said Rep. Ray LaHood, R-Ill., predicting that supportive lawmakers would face television ads accusing them of gutting Social Security when they run for re-election. "It will be a very, very tough sell for the president."

LaHood, a moderate who coasted to re-election in November, is not alone. Of the 232 Republicans who will serve in the House next year, at least 125 to 150 will need "a lot of hand-holding," said Rep. Mark Foley, R-Fla., who said he supports Bush's push.

Tom Blackburn, Cox News Service, dateline West Palm Beach, January 2nd, 2005 ...

It's impossible, though, to prepare a sound criticism of Mr. Bush's plan until he reveals it. Strategically, he seems to be trying to get everyone to accept it before anyone can prepare a sound criticism. He keeps saying that current and near-future retirees will get their Social Security payments as promised.

I lost track of how many times Rep. Mark Foley, R-Fla., made that point when he was on Steve Pomeranz's show on WXEL. A lot, though. That's nice to hear, although current and soon-to-be recipients do have to take it on faith that Mr. Bush can borrow all that money to keep the promise.

Fort Lauderdale Sun-Sentinel, January 5th, 2005 ...

Veteran members of the House from Florida were lining up on both sides of key issues on Tuesday.

Rep. Mark Foley, R-West Palm Beach, said he hopes Democrats at least will consider changes to Social Security so it can remain solvent for decades to come. He said private accounts should not be ruled out.

Investors Business Daily, January 6th, 2005 ...

Rep. Mark Foley, R-Fla., another supporter, says there are 125-130 GOP lawmakers who will need "a lot of hand-holding."

"I hear a lot from my colleagues, "Bush doesn't have to run again. We do. Why don't we kick the can down the road?' " Foley said.

Foley just got reelected with almost 70% of the vote in his district. Then again this handy page on the Social Security Administration website says Foley's 16th district has the 5th largest concentration of Social Security recipients (178,715) in the state.

(Are you glad you found that page? You could say that.)

Late Update: The original version of this post incorrectly stated that the 16th district has the 4th highest concentration of Social Security recipients. It has the 5th highest.

Only just barely, but freshman Washington state Republican Rep. Dave Reichert sounds like he's in the Conscience Caucus.

The Tri-City Herald reports that Reichert told them "he was intrigued by the idea of personal accounts, but was reluctant to add to the federal deficit."

Rep. John Tanner of Tennessee trying to find a way out of the Faction?

You think Marty Frost should be the next chair of the DNC? Or maybe you're for Simon Rosenberg? Or Donnie Fowler? Or maybe Howard Dean?

But let's be honest. Who cares what you think? You don't have a vote.

For all the crackling enthusiasm ones sees across the web or in various new activist groups for this or that candidate, as Howard Wolfson lamented last month in the Times, only the 440 members of the Democratic National Committee have any say in the matter. They're the only ones who have a vote.

As this page on the DNC website explains, those 440 DNC members are a mix of state party officials and bigwigs, a smattering of office-holders nationwide, various folks appointed by the sitting chairman and others.

Like Howard, I think it would be a bad idea just to throw the whole thing open to some sort of national party primary. Choosing from amongst the elected officials of the state parties adds experience and consensus-building to the equation. It also makes for various sorts of diversity, though not in all respects. But certainly active, rank-and-file Democrats should have some say in the matter, especially now when there seems to be more widespread and impassioned interest in the choice then there's been in a very long time.

Obviously, it's too late to change the rules now. But if you do have a candidate, find out who the DNC members are in your state and let them know what you think, what you want. There are also members chosen from different constituencies and different sectors of government. Find out about them too.

Don't get me wrong. This isn't a knock against party officials, as such. And I think smoke-filled rooms (or, given our Democratic sensibilities today, I guess, non-smoke-filled rooms) have more to recommend them than we sometimes imagine. But this is a big decision for Democrats, one that will help shape the party in a period when Democrats are both coming off intensely demoralizing defeats but also witnessing what I believe are exciting signs of new vibrancy and growth. This one's too important to be left to the vagaries of chits and glad-handing.

Do reporters respond when the president tells flagrant lies?

(No, it's not a trick question.)

Today the president said: "Most younger people in America think they'll never see a dime [from Social Security]. Probably an exaggeration to a certain extent. But a lot of people who are young, who understand how Social Security works, really do wonder whether they'll see anything."

The president says it's "an exaggeration to a certain extent" to say that younger people today don't think they'll ever get any money from Social Security, despite the fact that they pay over 12% (employees' and employers' contributions combined) out of every paycheck into the program.

I'm thirty-five, though not for much longer. So I hope I don't flatter myself too greatly to include myself among the "younger people" to whom President Bush is referring. So, God willing, I will turn 67 in February 2036.

According to the Trustees, using very pessimistic estimates of future economic growth, Social Security will be able to pay full benefits until 2042. After that, incoming revenue, they say, will be able to pay for at least 70% of my benefits. In other words, I'm good until I'm 73, after which my benefits could drop by as much as 30% if the US economy does really poorly over the next 35 years and no one does anything whatsoever with Social Security until then.

On the other hand, the Congressional Budget Office, under the leadership of former Bush White House senior economist Douglas Holtz-Eakin, says I'll have no problem until 2052, when I'll be 83. After that, they say, there will be a reduction, but again not an overwhelming one.

Bear in mind of course, as we've said again and again, if the US economy just keeps growing at the rate it has for the last hundred years or more, any problems are likely a good deal further out into the future.

So, what does this tell us? According to relatively pessimistic forecasts, two government agencies -- one of which is part of a Republican administration and the other under the oversight of a Republican congress -- say I'll get my full benefits for either the first five years of my retirement or the first fifteen years. After that, if nothing changes at all, I'll probably keep drawing three-quarters of my benefits. And even if I'm only drawing that three-quarters it'll still be more than today's retirees draw even in inflation-adjusted dollars.

This disconnect suggests one of three possibilities.

One is that the president has been briefed on certain highly classified budget projections which show a far more dire situation than the government's non-classified budgeting estimates would have us believe. We'll call this the secret evidence hypothesis.

Another possibility is that President Bush believes that the US government will default on the Treasury notes held by the Social Security Administration. Let's call this the Harken Energy hypothesis.

If it's neither of these we can only conclude that as he has done repeatedly before, this president is deceiving the people he has sworn to serve and defend in order to achieve a policy goal he cannot manage by honest means.

Indeed, it is still more cynical and deliberate than that. The president knows he can't say, "No one will get any benefits after 2030, so help me replace Social Security with private accounts." So, just as he and his associates did during the build up to the Iraq war, he uses paraphrases, work-arounds and slippery repetitons to communicate the intended falsehood while still providing himself with sufficient wiggle room to evade being tagged as a liar.

So here, for instance, he states that young people think they'll never collect Social Security benefits. Then he says that's "probably an exaggeration to a certain extent." And then he goes on to say that it's precisely the young people who are knowledgable about Social Security who think this. The clear implication, the meaning he intends to convey, is that this dire prediction is at least more true than not, when in fact, as we've noted, to the extent we can know anything about the future, it's not even close to being true.

Like I said, do reporters call him on it? Even toss a question to McClellan?

Late Update: According to the LAT, the president told one 27 year old at his Social Security event, "At your age [Social Security] will be bust by the time it comes for you to retire." And then later, "If you're 20 years old, in your mid-20s, and you're beginning to work, I want you to think about a Social Security system that will be flat bust, bankrupt, unless the United States Congress has got the willingness to act now."

It's certainly what he wants them to think. Chief Executive as confidence man.

More baloney from Dobson's outfit. Crosses banned from Inauguration!

If you have a blog and can't think of a topic to dig into today, try reading through this online Q&A the White House just held with Chuck Blahous, President Bush's Social Security phase-out <$NoAd$>maven.

Listen to this exchange with "Stuart" from New Jersey (italics added) ...

Stuart, from New Jersey writes:
How can we make the transition to invester owned social security without incurring 2 trillion in dept to fund current citizans recieving assistance?

Chuck Blahous
As long as we have a Social Security system, there will be costs no matter what we do. The Social Security Trustees have told us the cost of maintaining the current system without change. It is approximately $10.4 trillion, in present value. That is the extra revenue that the system would need to have on hand today, above and beyond all payroll taxes, to meet the gap between taxes and promised benefits.

A number of comprehensive proposals have been put forward, some by Members of Congress, others by the President’s bipartisan Commission to Strengthen Social Security. President Bush has not selected a specific reform proposal. Several of these proposals would fix the system permanently while considerably reducing the cost of sustaining the system under current law.

The current system would begin its “transition” from the black to the red in 2018. From that date onward, under current law, the current system would face a deficit that is growing worse with each following year. The President has proposed that we head off this event by beginning to invest now in the future of Social Security. We can do this for far less than the $10 trillion cost of sustaining the current system.

Wow, Social Security Administration needs ten trillion dollars on hand today and it's got nuthin'. That really is a crisis!

Infinity? Today? But, hey, who's counting?

Does Blahous not think anybody's going to read this stuff?

Okay, a walk down TPM's memory lane. <$NoAd$>Back in 2002 we brought you the NRCC (the GOP's House campaign committee) internal memo instructing candidates how to bully reporters out of using the term 'privatization' to describe their Social Security proposal --- this notwithstanding the fact that this was the word they themselves chose to describe their plan and never had a problem with until their pollsters told them to drop it.

The memo also gave general guidelines on how to run away from their support for President Bush's phase-out plan.

Some highlights ...

Democrat attempt to label GOP position on Social Security as favoring "privatization" presents serious threat. GOP, Members, and candidates must fight back against this label.

....

AARP is a dangerous adversary in this debate. They have greater credibility than any entity on this issue and are not viewed as partisan.

...

Candidate must focus on messages that reassure voters/seniors that they will not cut benefits and that nothing will change with their Social Security.

With the debate heating up, we thought it was time to revisit these old favorites. Here's the full memo (27 pages) and the highlights (4 pages) from the TPM Document Collection.

Fainthearted Faction member Ron Kind of Wisconsin reappointed House Democrats' Chief Deputy Whip.

As you've likely heard the president's rich friends are giving tons of cash for a big inaugural shindig, notwithstanding the fact that we're supposed to be at war. But look at this lede on the front page of today's Post ...

D.C. officials said yesterday that the Bush administration is refusing to reimburse the District for most of the costs associated with next week's inauguration, breaking with precedent and forcing the city to divert $11.9 million from homeland security projects.

Federal officials have told the District that it should cover the expenses by using some of the $240 million in federal homeland security grants it has received in the past three years -- money awarded to the city because it is among the places at highest risk of a terrorist attack.

It is supremely fitting that the celebration of a victory won by politicizing and hyping homeland security and terrorism ends up with this sort of <$NoAd$>funding problem.

It's still going to take us a bit longer to get our Social Security database up and running. So for now we've added this little box you see there on the right with links to the most up-to-date lists of the Fainthearted Faction as well as the Republicans' rapidly growing Conscience Caucus.

Look at this piece in tomorrow's Post on Republican resistance to the president's Social Security phase-out bill. The spark to the piece is Rep. Rob Simmons, a Republican from a pretty competitive district in eastern Connecticut, who says flat out that he's not going to vote for the president's bill.

More revealing is the fact that Republicans themselves, according to the Post, estimate that between 15 and 40 members of their House caucus agree with Simmons. And note Bill Kristol's also sounding a note of opposition, both on the politics and even the substance of the president's plan.

As several other blogs have already done, I really recommend reading this piece in the New Republic about how the laws that are meant to protect the right to organize in this country are increasingly going unenforced or feebly enforced and how that is having ill effects throughout our society and economy.

From the Post: "Rep. [Rob]Simmons [of Connecticut] said there is no way he will support Bush's idea of allowing younger Americans to divert some of their payroll taxes into private accounts, especially when there are more pressing needs, such as shoring up Medicare and providing armor to U.S. troops in Iraq."

It sounds like President Bush doesn't have Rep. Simmons' vote. Add him to the list.

Just a quick update on our Social Security 'where do they stand' database. We had an unforeseen delay on the tech end of the operation. But now we're back underway and we should have the database up and online in the not-too-distant future. For those of you who've written in and offered to volunteer your time, we'll be in touch with you shortly.

As you can imagine, nothing <$Ad$>brings tears of joy to the TPM family more than striking a representative or senator from the rolls of the Fainthearted Faction. In fact, I'm tempted to say talk amongst yourselves, while I take a moment. But I'll press on.

As we said earlier, Rep. Jim Moran of Virginia is out of the Fainthearted Faction. And out with a bang, it turns out.

You can read the constituent letter he's now sending out here (the key passage is on page two).

But the key passage is this one (emphasis in the original) ...

Information to date suggests that the reform proposal supported by the President would finace ISA's [i.e., private accounts] by diverting a portion of the payroll taxes now paid into Social Security. I will oppose any such plan and encourage my colleagues to do the same.

If you have a moment, read the letter itself. It provides a detailed discussion of the policy issues involved, and in one passage even a rather stirring description of what Social Security is and why it's so important.

And if you're one of Rep. Moran's constituents and you think the battle to defend Social Security from the president's phase-out plan is an important one, maybe drop him a line and tell him you appreciate his stand.

Jim Moran out of the Faction? Seems so. More soon.

Say it ain't so! Sen. Landrieu in the Faction. "I’m not saying absolutely, positively ‘no’ to private accounts," she told CQ last <$NoAd$> week.

Could Hillary be next?

The same article says the following ...

Advocates for personal accounts see a small possibility of winning the support of Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y. Her husband studied the idea while president and has since made public statements suggesting he supports the principle. Sen. Clinton has not publicly wedded herself to either side of the debate. Her office did not respond to requests for comment Friday.

I think that misstates President Clinton's post-presidency statements on Social Security. But however that may be, Hillary hasn't made up her mind? No comment?

Late Update: The email Sen. Clinton is sending out to constituents does seem to suggest she'll oppose the president's phase-out plan. And, myself, I'd be stunned if she ended up voting with the president. But CQ still has her down as a possible.

We thought Blanche Lincoln had left the Fainthearted Faction. <$NoAd$>But it seems like she's not quite ready to give up her membership card after all.

This from the Associated Press today ...

As the Bush Administration readies to bring Social Security to the forefront, U.S. Sen. Blanche Lincoln said that she doesn't support allowing the system's dollars to be invested in private accounts.

"I do not think you can divert payroll taxes into private investment accounts," Lincoln said. "It jeopardizes the solvency of the program for current retirees."

However, Arkansas' senior senator also said that she is not shutting out the idea entirely because that, "is not being fair to the problem."

Blanche Lincoln: Iffy on Social Security, but fair to the problem? Why do Democrats in the Fainthearted Faction feel it necessary to be fair to a policy choice they claim already to have decided is a bad idea?

More on the WaPo's Social Security myopia.

Yesterday we noted the Post's Social Security editorial in which the well-heeled Posties agreed that deep cuts in benefits were surely a good thing and that ...

If workers aren't happy with a pension that, while generous in relation to the living standards of their younger years, feels stingy in relation to their earnings immediately before retirement, they can, if not in the lower brackets, save privately to supplement their Social Security benefit; if healthy, they also can postpone retirement.

This editorial is the sort of historical document <$Ad$>that makes you want to go back and reread each of Mike Lind's books from the early 1990s about politics and political economy -- which is always a good thing to do in any case. But for the moment let's go back to the editorial board's myopia.

The authors observe that recipients, instead of whining about the cuts, should simply save more on their own -- as long as they're "not in the lower brackets."

Now, there aren't that many tax brackets. In fact, if memory serves there are now six federal tax brackets -- 10%, 15%, 25%, 28% 33% and 35%. For next year, the upper three brackets are for joint-filing couples making making $120,000 a year and up and individuals who make over $72,000.

By inference, this must be the class of whiners the Post is addressing since these are the folks who are "not in the lower brackets." Does the Post really think that these high-income earners are the folks this debate is about? Or the folks for whom Social Security represents a critical component of their retirement security?

Later, the editorialists argue that the "poor" should receive unspecified "special protections" from the benefit cutting.

But does anybody seem like they're left out of this picture? Right, the overwhelming majority of Americans in those lower three brackets who spend their lifetimes making middle-class wages -- Bill Clinton's folks who 'work hard and play by the rules.'

They aren't 'poor'. So they wouldn't qualify for the "special protections" (i.e., old age welfare) that the Post advises. And they rely on the Social Security they've been paying into all their lives as a key protection against having to become poor in their retirement years.

They're just not in the Post's field of vision.

Here is one of many comparisons and observations we'll be making to provide some counterweight to the White House's efforts to deceive the American people about Social Security.

The Social Security Trustees estimate that over the next 75 years the program faces a budget shortfall of $3.7 trillion.

As we've noted previously and will again, the Trustees use a very pessimistic estimate of future economic growth to arrive at that figure. But, for the moment, let's stipulate to that amount.

$3.7 trillion is a lot of money.

But how much will the president's Medicare drug benefit plan cost over the next 75 years?

$8.1 trillion, say the Trustees of that program.

And over the next 75 years how much will the president's 2001 and 2003 tax cuts cost if made permanent, as the president wants?

$11.6 trillion.

So you add that up and you get $3.7 trillion we need to cover Social Security's shortfall and $19.7 trillion we need just to cover the costs of the two major domestic policy initiatives of the president's first term.

And yet Social Security, says the president, is in crisis and destined to chew through the rest of the federal budget.

(These statistics are noted in this budgeting summary from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.)

I would submit to you that in any reasonable universe this simple comparison shatters the president's credibility on fiscal 'icebergs' and spending crises. And yet these basic facts seem to garner little notice.

That is because, in the last couple decades, in the culture of Washington -- particularly among the elite commentators and reporters (just watch Meet the Press) -- presuming that Social Security is financially unviable has become an ready shorthand for public policy seriousness, much as many use a basic knowledge of imported wines or a familiarity with classical music to signal refinement.

This is something the president is exploiting. And the defenders of Social Security must find ways to overcome it.

The Hill on House Democrats placing pressure on Fainthearted Faction member Collin Peterson of Minnesota. This article, meanwhile, notes that the big committee-assignment loser this year in the Wisconsin delegation was Faction member Ron Kind.

On the other side of the aisle, among others, we're watching Jo Ann Emerson of Missouri, a member of the Shays Handful.

The rest of the Republicans from Missouri are either endorsing the Bush phase-out plan or suggesting they're inclined to support it. But Emerson is, conspicuously, doing neither. "We ought to get the budget back in balance and restrain spending, quit spending money like drunken sailors, and then look at where Social Security is when we’ve done that," she told the Associated Press.

#8 on Jim Cramer's list of ten business predictions for the coming year (in New York magazine ...)

8. The president will ram Social Security “reform” through Congress by getting brokerage houses to lobby for the change.
George Bush will promise Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, Schwab, Lehman Brothers, and Bear Stearns the contract to privatize Social Security and let them be the administrators of the project. These firms will then get their employees to give millions to politicians who are on the fence. Their stocks will triple in value from the prospect of the new business, they’ll pressure the Republican-led Congress for swift passage in the fall of 2005, and the deal will get done.

Certainly, part of the plan.

The Washington Post editorial board buys into the Social Security 'crisis' logic; then opts for the Goldilocks middle path. Broderism ascendent?

A special moment from the Post editors on learning to love inflation indexing ...

"If workers aren't happy with a pension that, while generous in relation to the living standards of their younger years, feels stingy in relation to their earnings immediately before retirement, they can, if not in the lower brackets, save privately to supplement their Social Security benefit; if healthy, they also can postpone retirement."

James Glassman rattles off the standard Social Security phase-out claptrap, but along the way does us the service of telling us what he really thinks: "Social Security stinks."

And why wouldn't you take the word of the guy who wrote Dow 36,000?