Sheryl Gay Stolberg has a nice piece in tomorrow's Times about how central the Social Security debate has become for Dems.
In the portion discussing potential waverers, she writes...
One such Democrat, Senator Ben Nelson of Nebraska, has taken a tentative step toward working across party lines, by attending a private meeting with Republicans, led by Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, to talk about Social Security. But Mr. Graham's idea, to increase Social Security taxes as a way of financing the transition to private accounts, is not in favor at the White House.Another Democrat from a heavily Republican state, Senator Max Baucus of Montana, joined Republicans to help pass Mr. Bush's tax cuts and prescription drug coverage for the elderly. But Mr. Baucus, who as the senior Democrat on the Senate Finance Committee is the party's point man on Social Security, says he will not join the president in the current fight.
Across the Capitol in the House, Representative Harold E. Ford Jr., Democrat of Tennessee, has in the past embraced the concept of private accounts. But Mr. Ford, who intends to seek the Senate seat being vacated in 2006 by the Republican leader, Bill Frist, also opposes Mr. Bush's plan.
"The math isn't right," Mr. Ford said, adding that while he liked "the idea of building wealth," he did not favor using private accounts to replace any of the guaranteed Social Security benefit.
A couple points.
First, the<$Ad$>mention of Sen. Nelson (D) of Nebraska seems incomplete without noting that he has now explicitly come out in favor of add-on accounts rather than carved-out accounts favored by President Bush and even more emphatically against changing benefits to tie them to inflation rather than wages.
Not enough to get him out of the Faction yet. But a pretty big deal.
Then there's Rep. Harold Ford,Jr. (D) of Tennessee, former Dean of the Fainthearted Faction. Ford put out a statement last month saying he did not back the president's bill or approach. But he still seemed to leave the door open to privatization, perhaps when the country's fiscal house was in better order.
No more, it seems.
Stolberg doesn't use an exact quote. But she paraphrases him saying no private accounts to replace "any of the guaranteed Social Security benefit."
If she's got the nuance of what he told her right, that's a lot more than he's been willing to say to date (maybe it's that senate announcement coming up late next month?). If he said that himself, he'd be out of the Faction entirely.
--Josh Marshall
Sen. Evan Bayh goes on the Stephanopoulos show on ABC this Sunday.
Will George pop the question that ushers Bayh out of the Fainthearted Faction? Or will Bayh let Sen. Ben Nelson beat him to the door?
He's on the show to talk about voting 'no' on Condi. So you can bet the presidency is on his mind.
--Josh Marshall
As badly as the White House has stumbled in these early weeks of the Social Security debate, the presidency is an office of tremendous force and power, particularly one as familiar with and wedded to discipline and demagoguery as this one. All the folks who cover the White House are looking for WMD2. It'll be one big push of fear-mongering and fibs to bum-rush the country into phasing out Social Security.
Do not underestimate it.
As this and other articles make clear, the president will hit the road right after the State of the Union, with the avowed aim of breaking through the biggest obstacle standing in the way of his efforts to begin phasing-out Social Security. As the Times puts it,"the trip next week will be in part an effort to crack the Democratic wall" of opposition.
In fact, that probably understates how central that aim is, since breaking free some Democrats loosens up everything else.
So there it is. The Democrats have built a solid wall of opposition to phasing out Social Security. And it's there -- in many ways more than in his own party -- that his plan has been momentarily stopped in its tracks. He knows it. The Dems know it. Everybody knows it.
The Dems have built it up. And next week we get to see if the president can knock it down.
Sen. Baucus (D) is hanging tough, telling the press that the president can come to Montana as often as he likes; he still won't help him phase out Social Security. Sen. Nelson of Nebraska (one of the most entrenched numbers of the Fainthearted Faction until now) has preemptively announced his support of add-on accounts, rather than phase-out. Others on the hit list are Sens. Lincoln, Conrad and Nelson of Florida.
Will the Fainthearted go fainter still or will they send the president back to Washington with no one else to help him phase out Social Security? It's in their hands; so it's in your hands.
--Josh Marshall
Another local Democratic party committee resolution in opposition to phasing out Social Security -- this time from Washington state.
And what's that line after the 6th 'whereas'? "Whereas there is indication that at least one recently re-elected Democratic Senator from the Northwest has not expressed a public position on the Republican plan;"
Hmmmm ...
--Josh Marshall
Sen. Baucus (D) says the president can come to Montana if he wants, but he still won't help him phase out Social Security.
--Josh Marshall
Ed Kilgore says that on the whole presidents should get their pick of cabinet nominees. But on Gonzales? No way.
Everyone seems to agree.
--Josh Marshall
As most all of you know, there's a heated race going on for the chairmanship of the Democratic National Committee, something that hasn't happened since before the Clinton era. The race will be decided in about two weeks; but so far I've only done a handful of posts about it.
Partly that's due to time constraints and the inherently opaque nature of the selection process. But mainly it is because I have been so focused on the Social Security issue. And getting into a tussle among Democrats is not easy to square with doing what you can to unify them. As I guess must be pretty clear by now, I think preserving Social Security is the transcendent issue today for the Democratic party -- indeed, for the country as a whole.
A few weeks ago I actually wrote some version of what you'll find below, but then trashed it because I didn't want anything getting in the way or anyone's negative reaction distracting from what I was trying to do on the Social Security issue.
So, with that over-long introduction, let me just address the issue here briefly and in one shot.
If I were one of the four-hundred-odd people who have a vote in this race, I'd be voting for Simon Rosenberg. And I'd feel very strongly about the vote and cast it without reservation.
Why?
Two basic reasons.
First, I think Simon is one of the relatively few people in the Democratic party today who combine two things: a) a deep and considered understanding of why we must and how we can rebuild the infrastructure of the Democratic party and -- and it's a huge 'and' -- b) the organizational abilities and skills to be part of making it happen.
This means everything from building up the decrepit state of state and local parties, to funding and nurturing think-tanks and activist organizations that are an essential part of a modern American party, to harnessing the roiling political energy emerging on the Internet, the whole bit.
I'm not telling anyone anything new by noting these imperatives. It's become almost a cliche -- though an awfully important one -- among all thinking Democrats of late that the Democratic party has to undergo the sort of process of internal transformation that the Republicans did beginning in the early 1970s.
But how to do it exactly? This is a different era and the Democrats are a different party. I've spoken to Simon about this a number of times and I think he understands what needs doing and has a keen sense of how to proceed.
Second, the issue of party divisions. There are obvious divisions in the Democratic party today. From some vantage points, it seems like a left/right, Old Dem/New Dem issue. But I think it's more an issue of establishment vs. rising activism and very different understandings of the Democratic party's role in a country where Republicans now control all of the federal government and are the dominant national party. I think everyone who observes the Democratic party today knows the cleavage I'm talking about even if it's not always clear just how to define it.
Simon's the only candidate in the race who has credibility and strong associations in both camps. You only have to look at the name of the group he runs -- The New Democrat Network -- to see his connections to the Clinton/New Dem part of the party. On the other hand he was one of the few people from that world who was a defender of Dean during the primaries and someone very in touch with the new and unruly world of net activism. Joe Trippi, Dean's campaign manager, is now actively supporting Rosenberg's campaign for chair.
All of this is very important because the Democratic party will be a cracked vessel without both camps coming together, not to agree on everything or make nice, but to build a powerful coalition. We can't afford to let either feel like they wholly lost out in this contest or that the other group is in the saddle to their exclusion.
What I'm saying here isn't aimed against anyone. I think Howard Dean and Marty Frost are both great Democrats. In very different ways both demonstrated that in the last two years. I just don't think either is the right one, right now, for this position. I think that's Simon Rosenberg.
Back in July, at the convention, I sat down with Simon for a few minutes at an NDN event. And this was just after the Matt Bai article in the Times magazine had come out about the movement afoot to rebuild the Democratic party's infrastructure and so forth.
Spirits were high all around at that point in the campaign. And Simon's work had figured prominently in the piece so he was very jazzed with that along with everything else that was happening at that moment (check out the piece, if it's not clear what I'm talking about). And at one point he said that what this network of people were trying to do would take a good ten years to accomplish -- building new institutions, sustainable sources of funding, new party infrastructure, and so forth.
I entirely agreed, I said. But my great worry, I told him, was that if Kerry lost the whole thing could be snuffed out in the cradle. Even today the sort of things we're talking about have only been in motion for a year or two. And the truth is that that's just not nearly enough time. So my worry was that you had all these people joining these new groups and giving money and getting involved in online activism and throwing themselves into the political fray. And if Kerry lost there might be some collective sense of, Wow, we did everything imaginable, had a united party, a motivated base, gave money, went door to door, blah blah blah. And it didn't work. So it's hopeless. Or all this rebuilding infrastructure business just didn't pan out after all. Or, in some sense, what we thought was the beginning of something new was just a dead-end.
And, so, here we are. In case you haven't heard, Kerry lost. And so what was my worry -- and I'm sure one many others felt too -- becomes a concrete challenge. A year or two was never going to be enough time. It's a much longer process, one with rhythms deeper and more sustained than the every-other-year election cycle. I remain excited and optimistic about the Democratic party's future. I think that a decade and two decades from now we'll look back and see what happened here in the first few years of this century as a beginning point, the beginning of a process that bore fruit in powerful and consequential ways in subsequent years. For reasons I've described above, in this race, I think Simon's the one to push that process forward.
--Josh Marshall
Rep. Allen Boyd, Dean of the Fainthearted Faction, has added a new "Saving Social Security" icon atop of his congressional website.
"In its current form, Social Security cannot last," writes Rep. Boyd.
Read the rest and see what you think.
--Josh Marshall
Stop what you're doing! Spit out your drink!
Does Sen. Ben Nelson (D) of Nebraska want out of the Faction?
We're not going to make any precipitous decisions, given how thoroughly Fainthearted we've long understood the senator to be.
But according to this article just out from Bloomberg ...
Private accounts should be set up as an addition to Social Security rather than a partial replacement, said Senator Ben Nelson of Nebraska, a key Democrat working with Republicans on reform.Any political solution to the controversial Social Security restructuring must include some "tweaking" of the program, such as raising the retirement age and increasing the $90,000 cap on taxable income, Nelson said today in an interview. Nelson, who is in talks with Senator Lindsey Graham, a South Carolina Republican, said a Republican proposal to change the formula for calculating benefit increases would be a "a non-starter."
How lame is Sen. Blanche Lincoln (D) of Arkansas going to feel if Nelson leaves the Faction before she does?
What about Evan Bayh? I can just see the 30 second primary ads now. Cue ominous music: "Bayh left the Faction after Ben Nelson. Can we trust Evan Bayh? I'm John Edwards and I approve this message."
Oh, the humanity ...
After we get done with the smelling <$NoAd$> salts we'll try to bring you more on these startling developments.
--Josh Marshall
Hmm. Club for Growth has set up their own pro-phase-out blog. But they always seem a few days behind the curve. Just today for instance they got around to savaging Rep. Sherwood Boehlert (R) of New York for entering the Conscience Caucus is his radio appearance last week on a local NPR station in his district. I guess I have to credit them with points for vitriol -- describing the encounter as a "nauseating exchange between a boot-licking radio jockey and the pork-loving, misinformed Boehlert," -- but as a website put together by the leading lobby of self-interested wealth, can't they manage a better intel network?
No state-of-the-art data-mining?
No bank of Tivo-ed TV screens?
No way it's a lacking of funding.
I thought phase-out was the new new thing ...
--Josh Marshall
Yep, Kevin's right. On Social Security you can't trust the Cato folks as far as you can throw'em. On other issues, they may be wrong. But that's just a difference of opinion. On this one they're wrong and full of it too. Kevin looks at their privatization calculator.
Meanwhile, TPM reader KL notes Cato's declining standards of rhetorical hygiene. Use the search function on Cato's SocialSecurity.org to find the word "privatization" and it pops up 1427 documents.
--Josh Marshall
CJR Daily chats up reporters from the Post, the Times and AP about personal and private accounts.
And if you're curious, I say Tomato.
--Josh Marshall
I keep hearing from constituents of Rep. Ginny Brown-Waite from Florida's 5th district who've gotten her phone call today. But no matter how many times she calls, Ginny keeps forgetting to answer the question on the table. She tells voters she won't cut benefits for current or near-retirees. But she never remembers to answer the question on the table: Does she support carving private accounts out of Social Security?
I'm not even going to be a stickler about the White House's latest rhetorical flim-flam. Does she support personal accounts carved out of Social Security? Gently inserted into Social Security? Making personal accounts part of the Social Security family.
Whatever!
In any case, Ginny is clearly sitting in her office working the phone all day today, placing countless calls. But she never departs from the script. So if anybody runs into her, please remind her to answer the question. Ginny, where do you stand on private accounts?
If you're FIW, fine. At least that's an answer.
--Josh Marshall
Following up on the earlier post about Rep. Ginny Brown-Waite (R) of Florida's 5th district, we hear that this morning she has her own phone messages running in the district trying to push back against the initial run criticizing her support of privatization. The message, I'm told, doesn't touch 'privatization' or 'private accounts' at all but only hits the 'no cuts for current or near-retirees' line.
We've also gotten reports from readers in three other districts around the country who say they received the same phone call which the Miami Herald reports ran in Florida CD 5 and CD 10.
--Josh Marshall
President Bush is always asking <$NoAd$> for credit because he allegedly ran last year on his Social Security phase-out plan. But doesn't it matter that he called them private accounts over and over again?
From a rally on September 14th of last year ...
But we've got to worry about the youngsters, our kids and our grandchildren, when it comes to the solvency of the Social Security system. That's why I believe younger workers ought to be able to take some of their own money, set aside a personal savings account that will help Social Security fulfill its promise, a private account that they can call their own, a private account they can pass on to the next generation and a private account that Government can't take away.
Private accounts today, private accounts tomorra, private accounts foreva ...
[ed.note: thanks to this site for the citation.]
--Josh Marshall
Things heat up in Florida 5.
As noted previously, Florida's 5th Congressional District, represented by second-term Republican Rep. Ginny Brown-Waite,has more Social Security recipients than any other in the country. In fact, it's not even close. Her district has 250,771, while the next runner-up, Florida 19, has 184,624.
Given those numbers and the fact that she won with only 48% of the vote in 2002, places her high on the target list for both Democrats and groups supporting Social Security.
Yesterday people started getting calls in her district, which according to the St. Petersburg Times, said: "I am calling to alert you that your congresswoman, Ginny Brown-Waite, supports privatizing Social Security. This plan would cost taxpayers $2-trillion dollars. It would also decrease future benefits to retirees by 47 percent. The Social Security trust fund should be in a lock box, not a Wall Street slot machine. Tell Congresswoman Waite that we want real Social Security reform, not a risky Wall Street gamble ..."
Brown-Waite says this is a "lie".
"I'm against privatization. I'm against cutting benefits to retirees," she told the Times. Then, she added, "We do have to look at the long term fiscal stability of Social Security."
In other words, Brown-Waite is relying on the misleading dodge that phasing-out a portion of Social Security and replacing it with private accounts does not equal "privatization". So what she's doing is far closer to 'lying' than anything in the recorded telephone message.
Indeed, while the language is pointed, it's not clear to me that there's anything even misleading about the call. Brown-Waite told the Miami Herald that the numbers were pulled "out of thin air." But that's hardly true. $2 trillion in transition fees is a consensus estimate which even understates the costs since it covers only the first decade after the beginning of the phase-out.
So this is a factual ad (or recorded message) and it clearly scares the hell out of Brown-Waite. And it's got her attention. She told the Herald that now she hasn't made up her mind yet about private accounts: "I'm damn independent, and I plan on continuing to be that way. If we do anything this year that's not going to benefit the majority of the people in my district, I'm not going to vote for it. I want to be able to go home."
The Times and the Herald both also report that the calls showed up in Rep. Bill Young's 10th district. Says the Times: "Longtime U.S. Rep. C.W. Bill Young, R-Largo, who also does not support privatization, has been the subject of similar calls, according to his spokesman, Harry Glenn."
Glenn says Young doesn't support 'privatization'. And the Times takes and repeats the claim at face-value. But, of course, Young's guy is just scamming constituents too, since he does support private accounts. His point of high principle is just not calling it 'privatization'.
Late Update: We're told that this morning Brown-Waite has her own phone messages running in the district trying to push back against the initial run criticizing her support of privatization. The message, I'm told, doesn't touch 'privatization' or 'private' accounts but only hits the 'no cuts for current or near-retirees' line.
--Josh Marshall
President Bush feeling his own power: "I fully understand the power of those who want to derail a Social Security agenda by, you know, scaring people."
--Josh Marshall
Whatever you do today do not miss the front page piece in the Times on Chile's disastrous experience with privatization. The case for the program is so strong it seems that José Piñera, the labor and social security minister under Pinochet, who ushered in the program, refused to even discuss it with the Times.
That despite the fact that he's had a sinecure at Cato for years as their big phase-out macher. He's the Co-Chair of their Project on Social Security Privatization Choice.
Perhaps the most telling line in the whole piece: "Among other achievements emphasized here by advocates of the privatized funds are the creation of a modern capital market, cheaper credit for companies that formerly could turn only to banks when they wanted to expand, and a brake on deficit spending by the government."
And which of those things has anything to do with retirement security exactly?
--Josh Marshall
An excellent piece of reporting from CJR Daily: Thomas Lang looked at AP reporter David Espo's use of the phrases "private accounts" and "personal accounts" and shows clearly that Espo has shifted from the former to the latter, with the pivot coming early last month, just as the White House was ramping up their phase-out campaign.
When asked, "Espo told CJR Daily he was unaware of the adjustment in his own choice of terminology, and said that 'on balance' he identifies the savings accounts as 'personal accounts.'"
In other words, the White House and its allies have been able to change the language Espo uses to describe privatization without his even being aware of it.
--Josh Marshall
The Boston Globe profiles and reports on the couple featured in the now banned episode of 'Postcards from Buster'. "It makes me sick," Karen Pike, a 42-year-old photographer from Vermont tells the Globe, "I'm actually aghast at the hatred stemming from such an important person in our government. . . . Her first official act was to denounce my family, and to denounce PBS for putting on a program that shows my family as loving, moral, and committed."
--Josh Marshall
A post from Marshall Wittman that I highly recommend. And Paul Starr's OpEd from the Times, which Marshall discusses.
--Josh Marshall
The bamboozlepalooza begins!
From the Boston Globe: "President Bush, facing a chilly reception on Capitol Hill on his plan to overhaul Social Security, said yesterday he would take his case directly to the American people, crisscrossing the nation to galvanize support for partially privatizing the 70-year-old federal retirement system."
--Josh Marshall
Headline from a local CBS affiliate back in Sen. Kent Conrad's home state of North Dakota: "Conrad: Social Security Idea Worth Look"
--Josh Marshall
Bam!
Sen. Kent Conrad (D) of North Dakota a stealth member of the <$NoAd$>Fainthearted Faction?
'Fraid so. Or at least he's signed up on a stand-by basis.
Just off the Bloomberg wire ...
Senator Kent Conrad, a North Dakota Democrat, said he told Office of Management and Budget Director Josh Bolton that the Social Security discussion needed to be expanded to include Medicare funding problems and a tax-code overhaul.Conrad, who said he didn't listen to Bush's comments, praised Thomas for suggesting alternatives to using the payroll tax to fund Social Security. ``There's been an over-reliance on payroll taxes,'' he said.
Conrad is part of a bipartisan group led by Senator Lindsey Graham, a South Carolina Republican, that is trying to develop fixes to the Social Security system.
And the Associated Press picks up from there ...
Conrad said Wednesday that he has already being heavily lobbied: Treasury Secretary John Snow phoned to talk Social Security; the director of the Office of Management and Budget, Josh Bolten, came to visit; and breakfast is scheduled next week with Senate Finance Committee Chairman Charles Grassley, R-Iowa."If this is just one of those things where the president says, It's my way or the highway ... I can't be for that," Conrad said. But he added: "I think there is a kernel of a good idea in creating accounts that individuals can control."
He said he wants Social Security addressed along with tax reform, long-term care and the solvency of Medicare -- big issues in their own right -- and he said he opposes borrowing large sums to pay for the private accounts, which many think will be necessary.
The backstory here, of course, is the four-state campaign swing President Bush is planning right after the State of the Union, to two states represented by senators from the Fainthearted Faction (Arkansas and North Dakota) and two (Florida and Montana) with senators who have been holding firm.
More soon ...
--Josh Marshall
NYT, down for the count.
First line of David Rosenbaum's piece on the Bush phase-out plan from Thursday's paper: "If individual investment accounts become an integral part of Social Security, as President Bush is proposing, what will happen to workers who become disabled before they retire?"
At this point I guess you can't blame the individual reporters, some of whose reporting is superb. It's just that the editors seem to have given the stylebook to Rove and Luntz for a scrub, or done it themselves on R&L's behalf.
--Josh Marshall
The episode page has already been pulled from the PBS website, but with the help of TPM reader LC and Google we've located the now lost episode of Postcards from Buster in which Buster the Rabbit visited Vermont and met "Emma, David, and James, who live with their two moms."
Another strike against Buster may have been that, as he admits in the segment promo, "Karen [one of the two moms] and my mom [who is presumably also a cartoon rabit] used to work at the same newspaper together."
Anyway, see it while you can. It's sure to become an underground classic like those bootlegs of SpongeBob's 'lost appearances' in Armistead Maupin's Tales of the City that 'the suits' pulled before the final cut.
--Josh Marshall
It seems that right after Ed. Secretary Margaret Spellings got through with her sapphic cartoon to-do list, she announced the appointment of -- inter alios -- Emily Kertz Lampkin as one of two deputy chiefs of staff.
This press release on the department website says that prior to this appointment Kertz Lampkin "served as the Department's director of No Child Left Behind communications and outreach for the past two years."
Doesn't that mean she handled the Armstrong Williams account?
--Josh Marshall
Oh, a moment rich in schadenfreude for the TPM faithful everywhere.
Here in the transcript of today's presidential press conference our man Carl Cameron (he of the Kerry-manicure imbroglio) tries to oblige but momentarily forgets the new party-line (emphasis added with great pleasure) ...
A question on Social Security, if we may, sir. There has been, as you move forward to making your plan -- your ultimate proposal, growing concern among Republicans on Capitol Hill. We had Chairman Thomas last week with some concern about the process, and Senator Olympia Snowe on the other side suggesting that she's concerned about an absentee guaranteed benefit -- excuse me. Are you prepared today to say that those who opt into a potential private account -- personal account could, in fact, have a guaranteed benefit, as well? And what do you say to Republicans who are beginning to worry?
If any covert TPMer should happen to <$NoAd$> encounter Cameron in the next twenty-four hours, please take a moment to inspect the knuckles for the tell-tale bruise.
[ed.note: Our cup of thanks runneth over for TPM reader LG who just won himself a shirt.]
--Josh Marshall
Yesterday we mentioned that the rapid deterioration of Republican support for President Bush's Social Security phase-out plan had necessitated a revision of the bylaws of the Republican Conscience Caucus.
The entry today of Sen. Gordon Smith (R) of Oregon made the need for a new system of classification even more pressing.
In a subsequent post we will go into more detail about the Caucus's new bylaws. For now, however, with the entry of Sen. Smith, we are adding a new subdivision of the Caucus. As you know, "L&P" Caucus members are those who appear "Loud and Proud" in their opposition to the president's phase-out plan. Our new designation "FIW" ("Finger In the Wind") designates those representatives or senators who have publicly made more or less clear, as Sen. Smith has done, that they are happy to begin phasing out Social Security so long as the president can make it safe for them to do so.
See the revised Conscience Caucus list here.
--Josh Marshall
Late Breaking Margaret Spellings Lesbian Update!
Earlier we noted that fast on the heels of the SpongeBob controversy, Education Secretary Margaret Spellings had come out swinging against another well-known cartoon character (Buster the Rabbit) for associating with lesbians.
In our earlier post, however, we incorrectly stated that she was attacking "lesbian cartoon characters." Not so. In fact, I'm told now by several TPM readers, the lesbians with whom cartoon character 'Buster' met were living, breathing, human lesbians.
Apropos of this point, the topic of cartoon-human interaction itself appears now to be emerging as a source of some controversy and press attention. Here, for instance, is a photograph of a recent meeting between SpongeBob and The Rev. John H. Thomas, general minister and president of the United Church of Christ at the Church's world headquarters in Cleveland.
--Josh Marshall
Terence Hunt of AP: a 'personal' accounts man.
Not so, David Espo: He's stickin' with 'private' accounts.
Late Update: My bad. Not sure how I didn't see this on first inspection, but it turns out Espo's switch-hitting, mixing his 'personal' accounts with his 'private' ones, and actually leaning toward the former.
Never too Late to Update Update: Okay, now things are really getting fishy. TPM Reader PF just sent in this note: "In your linked column, Espo does not use 'private accounts' at all. The article appears to have been posted at 4:31 pm EST, 45 minutes after your post. Did you see a different version of his article? Is this evidence of retroactive deprivatizing?" And by golly, he's right! I just checked and this time 'private accounts' doesn't appear once. So, yes, over the course of the day the phrase 'private accounts' would appear to be swirling down the memory hole before our very eyes. I suspect now that my first reading wasn't wrong either. It must have gone from 'private' accounts, to both, to now just 'personal'.
--Josh Marshall
A note from TPM reader Paul Krugman ...
Today's WSJ lead editorial is a classic. It's titled "All you need to know", and shows the CBO projection of declining deficits and stable debt. What they either don't know or believe readers don't know is that this is the *baseline* projection, which assumes that the sunset clauses in the tax cuts actually go into effect, with the whole thing expiring at the end of 2010 (which is halfway through fiscal 2011, in their chart.) It also assumes that nothing is done to reform the alternative minimum tax, which amounts to a stealth tax increase. So what they've proved is that the tax cuts are affordable as long as they go away ...
I say that man deserves a Special Edition Privatize This! TPM T-Shirt!
--Josh Marshall
Another senate Republican checking out the upholstery in the Conscience Caucus cloakroom?
From today's CQ ...
A second moderate Republican on the Finance Committee, Gordon H. Smith of Oregon, would not commit to supporting Bush’s plan, and added that the administration has not marketed it well....
"I’m philosophically open to [Bush’s plan]; I’m not signed up to it,” Smith said.
Both Snowe and Smith said they like the idea of “add-on” Social Security personal accounts funded from a source other than Social Security’s payroll tax revenue.
...
"A lot of us expressed that the White House started the debate, but the media and the other side are finishing the debate,” Smith said. “He needs to go back on offense.”
Sen. Smith: If you can protect me, you have my vote. <$NoAd$>Otherwise, I'm in the Caucus. I may even get a TPM T-Shirt out of it.
--Josh Marshall
Yet another wickedly funny Social Security phase-out ed. cartoon -- one that might have some Hill Republicans having nightmares.
--Josh Marshall
Wouldn't you figure we were giving them too much credit?
Section heading from January 12th White House Press Briefing Room: "Social Security/private accounts."
Two weeks ago, not three (I'll have to have word with Yglesias ...)
That and more from this post at the DCCC blog.
--Josh Marshall
Fresh on the heels of SpongeBob, Ed Secretary Margaret Spellings comes out swinging against lesbian cartoon characters agitating for airtime on PBS.
--Josh Marshall
Oh boy ... If at first you don't succeed, etc.
According to a July 28th, 2000 article in USA Today, back in 1978 when President Bush was running for congress in Texas, "he predicted Social Security would go broke in 10 years and said the system should give people 'the chance to invest money the way they feel' is best."
1978 is in the pre-nexis era. So it's difficult to find coverage from the time if you're not on the scene. But presumably there are some local papers accessible on microfilm down in Texas that would shed more light on George W.: The Early Phase-Out Years.
(TPM's got a pretty sizable Texas readership. Anyone have a few hours free? A Special Edition Privatize This! TPM T-Shirt and a mug for any contemporary articles on President Bush's first Social Security scare campaign.)
Jill Lawrence has the byline for the piece. Let's ask her.
[ed.note: Credit to the folks at Center for American Progress for the find.]
Late Update: Here's a bit more information on The Early Phase-Out Years from a 1999 article in The Texas Observer ...
According to Gary Ott, who was then a reporter for the Plainview Daily Herald, Bush stopped by the paper’s little office "maybe five or six times. He’d sit down at my desk; he was a fun guy. He was very outgoing, very friendly, and we would argue politics since I was a liberal. We’d argue over Carter policies." Bush criticized energy policy, federal land use policy, subsidized housing, and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration ("a misuse of power," he said), and he warned that Social Security would go bust in ten years unless people were given a chance to invest the money themselves. None of this really distinguished him from Hance, though, so in the end Bush simply argued that a Republican could better represent the district: "If you want a chance in the way Congress has been run, send someone who will be independent from those who will run the Congress."
So where are the microfilms of the Plainview Daily Herald?
--Josh Marshall
TPM reader NB reports in from the field on <$NoAd$>the semantic chaos that has the Grey Lady spinning in circles ...
"Bush Finds a Backer in Moynihan, Who's Not Talking""Senators Urge Bush to Sell Overhaul of Social Security"
Josh,
It appears a semantics battle is being waged at The NYTimes...the above links from today's paper indicate inner (dare we say personal) turmoil. Richard Stevenson comes out of the gate strong, using "private investment accounts" in the first sentence. He loses his footing, however in the third graph and writes of "ways of establishing personal accounts..." and repeats this in paragraph five. Stevenson comes roaring back near the end, reverting to "private investment accounts" (albeit in reference to Moynihan's plan which may have used that term specifically).
In the second article "private" is used four times and "personal" once.
Heated editorial arguments involved here, a transitional phase between "private" and "personal"? Or just a case of writers not needing a thesaurus now that Bush's PR hacks have given them an alternative...
cheers,
NB
Atlanta
[ed.note: We've just awarded NB a Special Edition Privatize This! TPM T-Shirt for conspicuous gallantry in the battle to save Social Security, service on the Orwell front.]
[Late Update: With his permission, we are happy to announce that NB is none other than Neal Broffman of Atlanta.]
--Josh Marshall
Another article on the president's pitch to black leaders at the White House on Tuesday: You die so young, you're not getting a good deal from Social Security.
Since the president now seems inclined to bang on this patently dishonest argument, it's probably time for someone to pipe up and explain that the study the president is relying on has already been discredited by studies by the Social Security Administration and what was then still called the Government Accounting Office for errors so elementary that they were almost certainly intentional.
Some, though not all of those errors, are explained in this recent editorial from the Minneapolis Star-Tribune.
--Josh Marshall
Another local Democratic party resolution against President Bush's phase-out plan. This one from Minnesota's Democratic-Farmer-Labor Party Congressional District 2 Central Committee and Senate District 39 Central Committee.
--Josh Marshall
It turns out that Armstrong Williams wasn't the only pundit on the Bush administration payroll. Maggie Gallagher got $21,500 from HHS to flack Bush administration marriage and family policy. That's the story Howie Kurtz lands in tomorrow's Post.
On top of that, says Kurtz: "Gallagher received an additional $20,000 from the Bush administration in 2002 and 2003 for writing a report, titled 'Can Government Strengthen Marriage?', for a private organization called the National Fatherhood Initiative."
When you read a bit further down into the piece you find this fact: The fellow who hired Gallagher at HHS is Wade Horn, HHS assistant secretary for children and families. And what'd he do before he started work for the Bush administration? Right, he founded the National Fatherhood Iniative.
It seems fair to say that the Gallagher arrangement wasn't as egregious as the Williams one. It's not clear -- at least from Kurtz's piece -- that she was paid to flack the policy, but rather to ghostwrite a few marriage policy articles, write a few brochures and do ... well, it's actually not totally clear what she was paid to do.
Which suggests a point. Were they really worried that Gallagher would come out for free love without the cash incentive? Neither she nor Williams is really known for their independent streak. In Gallagher's case -- and to some degree in Williams' too -- this seems less like a matter of payola than a Bush administration make-work program for third-tier GOP pundits.
--Josh Marshall
The ludicrous claim Sen. Wayne Allard (R) of Colorado made earlier this month -- that Social Security is $28 trillion in debt -- finally catches up with him in the Denver Post.
In case you've got your Wayne Allard scorecard out, that was the same town meeting when he said the US government would simply default on those Treasury notes in the Trust Fund.
--Josh Marshall
Oh to have been a fly on the wall. From AP ...
Bush tried to get ministers and other leaders of the black community behind his agenda in an earlier private meeting that lasted more than an hour. Attendees said Bush told them his plan to add private accounts to Social Security would benefit blacks since they tend to die younger than whites and end up paying in more than they take out. Private accounts would be owned by workers and could be inherited by loved ones after death.
GWB: With you guys dying so young, how can you not support me?
--Josh Marshall
The Times and NBC may have adopted "personal accounts" over "private accounts" at the bidding of the Republican National Committee. But the AP's Nedra Pickler is standing firm with "private accounts."
Reuters, meanwhile, tries to be half-pregnant with "personal stock and bond accounts", while Bloomberg ups the ante on the White House with "private stock accounts".
--Josh Marshall
If you're a regular reader of TPM this article from the Post by Mike Allen will probably bring a smile to your face. It reports on a meeting the president held today at the White House with congressional Republicans. The agenda? Trying to stop them from <$NoAd$> bailing out on his Social Security phase-out plan.
The first graf tells the tale: "President Bush pleaded for patience yesterday from Republican lawmakers who will shape Social Security legislation, summoning them to the White House at a time when they are expressing increasing frustration about his handling of his top priority for the year."
This graf, though, may be the most revealing ...
Senators and administration officials said that during the meeting, Bush emphasized the need to act quickly after he presents his proposals, and both sides said most senators agreed that something needs to be done.
So the president has been in no rush to explain what's actually contained in his proposal, even though he announced his intention to submit his own bill within a couple days of his reelection. And yet it's very important that Congress adopt it quickly after he submits it. I guess that says something about how confident he is in selling it to the public.
Consider that whether you call it Private Accounts or Phase-Out or Personal Accounts or Privativation or even Don't Worry/Be Happy Accounts, what the president is proposing would amount to one of the most consequential pieces of legislation to pass in any of our lifetimes, no matter how old you are. And yet the crisis is apparently so pressing that Congress must pass it immediately.
Sen. John Warner (R) of Virginia wasn't convinced. We rejoin Mike's article already in progress ...
Several Republicans expressed skepticism about the White House's hopes for swift passage. Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman John Warner (R-Va.) said Social Security legislation will take some time, "and it should -- it really should." He said he might ask the nonpartisan Government Accountability Office, the investigative arm of Congress, to prepare "a definitive analysis on the history of the program, the goals of the program.""We don't have at this point what I call an unbiased, analytical piece that the average Joe can pick up and say 'What is all this that the politicians are arguing about?' " he said.
Imagine Warner's temerity in gumming up the works by asking the GAO to do a study. What does he want to do to the phase-out plan, Daschle it?
(ed.note: The rapid erosion of support for the president's Social Security phase-out plan has forced us to rewrite the by-laws for the GOP Conscience Caucus. We'll be bringing you more on this late breaking development shortly. For now, Ways and Means Chairman Bill Thomas (R) of California has been asked to return his Caucus membership card.)
Late Update: Same basic story from the Times: "After a meeting with President Bush on Tuesday, Republican senators said they had cautioned him that the drive to change the Social Security system was faltering because the public was not convinced that a fundamental overhaul was necessary."
--Josh Marshall
Okay, I don't make a habit of suggesting people listen to clips of shows I've been on. But I think this 90 second exchange I had today with Frank Luntz on the Al Franken Show is worth sparing a moment for. As noted earlier, here Luntz explains why reporters who use the term "private accounts" are showing objective evidence of bias against the president even though this was the president's own favored phrase until a few weeks ago.
There's one part that isn't perfectly audible. That's when I for the second time ask how there can be anything wrong with reporters using this phrase when the president himself has repeatedly used it. Luntz responds "used it", placing a hard emphasis on the final "d", thus signifying that the president has stopped using the term and that therefore reporters should too.
Apparently, the New York Times finds this argument compelling. But I have to confess the logic escapes me.
Give it a listen.
You can also find the commentary about it at the Al Franken Show website.
--Josh Marshall
Oh, say it ain't so!
First, the New York Times gives the White House a smart salute and drops "private accounts" in favor of "personal accounts."
Now TPM friend Mark Murray of NBC News is signing on to the White House's new lexical directive and calling them "personal accounts" as well. From what we can tell, Mark and his colleagues at NBC's daily "First Read" were calling them "private accounts" as recently as 9:20 AM this morning.
Mark, please tell us this was a diktat from GE or Jeff Zucker and not something you came up with on your own ...
--Josh Marshall
Why does a seemingly good-natured fellow like National Review editor Rich Lowry want to go about denigrating the president's Social Security plan by using swear words like "private accounts".
And he seems like such a mensch too ...
--Josh Marshall
I was just on Al Franken's show a couple hours ago with Frank Luntz of all people. And in the course of the conversation I got to ask Luntz whether it was fair or appropriate for Democrats and/or journalists to refer to the president's policy as 'privatization' or the private accounts he wants to create as 'private accounts.' (As you the TPM reader know, these were the words that Republicans and other phase-out supporters themselves came up with.)
Luntz said that it is okay for Democrats to use these terms but not the press since that would mean they were taking sides in the debate. When I asked why this was so since these were words the president was using only a few weeks ago, what emerged in the course of the conversation is that it is apparently inappropriate for reporters to use a given term after the date on which the president stops using it.
(A logical corrolary of this reasoning would seem to be that they must use the new term the president designates, though I don't think Luntz said this explicitly.)
So whereas it was okay two months ago for reporters to use the term 'private accounts' they must now refer to them as 'personal accounts' because the president has now decided that that is the proper word.
Hopefully, Air America will post the exchange in question so that you can listen to or read it yourself and not have to rely on my (personal) account of it.
The New York Times seems to understand the new rules of the road. In the piece on the White House's emerging phase-out strategy, Edmund Andrews and Richard Stevenson are careful only to refer to them as "personal accounts."
--Josh Marshall
Bayh votes against Rice? This Bayh for President blog proudly notes Sen. Bayh's vote against Condi Rice to head the shop over at Foggy Bottom and questions whether a senator willing to vote against Condi really deserves a seat of honor in the Fainthearted Faction.
I heartily agree. It's hard to believe that a senator stand-up enough to vote against the serially-incompetent Condi Rice could be so lily-livered on phasing-out Social Security.
--Josh Marshall
Spongebob welcomed by United Church of Christ!
"Absolutely, the UCC extends an unequivocal welcome to SpongeBob," Rev. John H. Thomas, the UCC's general minister and president tells United Church News. "Jesus didn't turn people away. Neither do we."
Verily, the sponge which the builder rejects shall become the head cornersponge ...
--Josh Marshall
Feinstein restates opposition to phasing-out Social Security in a meeting with California reporters.
AARP digs in even deeper against the president's phase-out plan.
--Josh Marshall
Articles in tomorrow's Washington Times and New York Times show the White House conceding defeat in the initial skirmish over phasing-out Social Security. But, of course, the broader battle has scarcely even started.
The NY Times piece ("White House Looking for Ways to Ease Opposition to Social Security Overhaul") describes White House efforts to tweak their phase-out proposal (largely through shifting benefit cuts around) to calm opposition among Republicans and perhaps break the solid opposition from Democrats. The Wash Times piece has money-man Stephen Moore giving advice on "Getting Reform Back on Track," as the title of his piece puts it.
This is where we start to see what cards folks are really holding.
For Democrats, especially, the president has shown his hand. He wants to begin phasing-out Social Security and replacing it with a system of private investment accounts. Clearly, they're not dealing with a president who's about making some adjustments in the program to ensure its longterm viability. And that really should be all Democrats need to know. What we'll see now is whether, if President Bush makes the benefit cuts a bit less draconian or fiddles with the diversion of Social Security taxes, any of them are inclined to reward him.
This is key to the entire unfolding debate: do Democrats start looking for ways to ameliorate the damage caused by the president's phase-out plan or do they try to push the debate further on to why Social Security is good for America and should be retained. (Needless to say, whether Democrats do start to soften their position will have a direct and immediate effect on the willingness on Republicans to get back on board with the president's phase-out program.)
The question is not whether President Bush gets to phase-out 30% or 40% or 25% of Social Security in 2005. At least, it's not a question or a distinction that should concern Democrats or, for that matter, Republican supporters of Social Security. In the long run, whether we phase out 50% this year or 25% this year and another 25% in 2007 or some other mix isn't a matter of great consequence. The question is whether we start down the path of phasing it out at all.
The difference of opinion and values is pretty straightforward: Democrats support Social Security, the president supports private accounts. What is there to do but to find out where everyone stands?
--Josh Marshall
Just a little background.
We've heard from a few of our spies who've been in private meetings that Sen. Evan Bayh (D) or Indiana has been holding around the country to get set to run for president in a few years. And the Senator is telling these folks that he doesn't think there's a Social Security 'crisis' and that he'd only support private accounts as an add-on to Social Security, not as carve outs -- in other words, he says he has the consensus Democratic position.
But apparently, he's very much of the opinion that he shouldn't state his position publicly until President Bush announces a specific proposal.
Of course, if recent experience is any guide, that will probably happen shortly after the bill comes out of conference and about three hours before both houses get convened to vote on it in the middle of the night. After all, anything else would amount to the president