Don't miss this article in the Times about stirrings of change in the Middle East.
--Josh Marshall
The more he sinks the more he lies. In fact, I'm not even sure 'lying' quite does it justice. He just makes it up as he goes along now.
With apologies for re-covering old territory, for upwards of a decade there's been a debate, largely between Republicans and Democrats, over private accounts carved out of Social Security or 'add-on' accounts, accounts in addition to Social Security.
The add-on terminology has become close to universal in large part because it accurately describes what is being discussed.
Indeed, as recently as yesterday, Secretary Snow said that while the president greatly prefered private accounts as part of Social Security and believed that they would eventually become law, he was willing to put add-ons on the table if Democrats would negotiate.
Here's how the Times described what Snow had to say ...
Mr. Snow said the administration wanted to encourage the development of as many ideas as possible and that it was open to looking at personal accounts that would supplement Social Security rather than, as in the plan President Bush has proposed, replace a portion of the traditional government-paid benefit.Mr. Snow made it clear that Mr. Bush would prefer his approach, which is built on diverting a portion of a worker's payroll tax into a private investment account, and he predicted that the president's plan would win out in the end. And Mr. Snow cited what he said were shortcomings with the supplemental approach, which would require workers to make contributions into private accounts in addition to paying the existing payroll tax.
But his willingness to consider the alternative, known as an add-on account, suggested that the administration was intent on retaining as much flexibility as possible to overcome the political and substantive obstacles that have slowed Mr. Bush's drive to overhaul Social Security.
On the same day, the Post helpfully pointed out that though Snow was sent out to signal willingness to compromise, the president was only doing this to lure Democrats to the table ...
Snow told reporters that Bush also has not ruled out embracing a plan backed by many Democrats to create government-subsidized personal savings accounts outside the existing system. White House officials are privately telling Republicans that Bush is opposed to the idea but does not want to say so because it would appear he is not willing to compromise.
But that was yesterday.
Now, realizing that the add-on terminology is less toxic than his Social Security privatization policy, the president has decided that privatization really is an add-on after all.
From the Bamboozlepalooza event in New Jersey ...
This is a retirement account we're talking about. But it's your money, and the interest off that money goes to supplement the Social Security check that you're going to get from the federal government. See, personal accounts is an add-on to that which the government is going to pay you. It doesn't replace the Social Security system. It is a part of making -- getting a better rate of return, though, so -- to come closer to the promises made. That's important to know.
Now we would be remiss if we did not note that the Times article covering the day's events adopted what can only be called a singularly generous approach to the president's word games ...
Despite widespread evidence that the public is wary of changes to the benefits system, Mr. Bush did not retreat from his plan to divert some payroll taxes into individual accounts. Instead he shifted his language a bit to emphasize the parts of Social Security that would stay the same, describing the popular program as a "safety net" and borrowing a term for the types of accounts some Democrats have favored, "add-on" accounts outside the Social Security benefit system, to now describe his version of private accounts.
Where to start?
In a case where A and B are fundamentally different and you take the term for A and apply it to B, that is not usually known as 'borrowing'. I'm not sure whether 'lying' or 'deceiving' or something else altogether is a better term for it. But this isn't borrowing. It's simply an effort to mislead.
There's a clearer way for any newspaper to describe what happened: President Bush misidentified his proposal as an add-on to Social Security.
That covers the whole thing.
Simply look at the president's proposal, as the White House itself explains it, and you will see that the accounts are funded by diverted Social Security payroll taxes. And those who chose private accounts have their guaranteed benefit cut by an amount that is supposed to be roughly equivalent to what their account might be expected to make under favorable conditions. Under any version of the English language we're familiar with, that's not an add-on to Social Security. That comes out of Social Security.
Until today of course when the meaning of all the words changed.
Admittedly, these word games are nothing new. And perhaps men of destiny define words rather than being defined or constrained by them. But just as you cannot have a constructive discussion about strengthening Social Security with someone who wants to phase it out, you also cannot have an honest or meaningful discussion about anything with someone who on a daily basis changes the meaning of the words being discussed.
--Josh Marshall
Paul Krugman, Michael Tanner of Cato and I will debate Social Security (Is there a crisis?) at 7:00 PM on March 15th at the New York Society for Ethical Culture.
See the details here.
--Josh Marshall
According to Reuters, President Bush is shifting tactics.
He's stopped <$NoAd$>talking up the glories of private accounts and started hitting on what he claims is Social Security's looming bankruptcy.
But surely no one has less credibility on this issue than him since he's been crying wolf about this for almost thirty years.
Remember what he was saying in 1978...
[Social Security] will be bust in 10 years unless there are some changes ... The ideal solution would be for Social Security to be made sound and people given the chance to invest the money the way they feel.
This is a hanging curveball for anyone who wants to whack it out of the park.
--Josh Marshall
Hundreds gather in South Bend to protest the Count, the president and their plan to phase-out Social Security ...
Hundreds of protestors gathered outside the Joyce Center, starting as early at 10 AM Friday morning, to protest the president's Social Security reform plan. Some were students and others were community members of all ages, races and backgrounds. A few protestors drove from as far away as Indianapolis.
Soon, on the scene accounts from TPM Readers.
--Josh Marshall
Are things going so badly on phase-out that the president is threatening to do "something drastic"?
Seems so.
Just off the wire from Bloomberg ...
President George W. Bush, facing a decline in public support for private Social Security accounts, said "something drastic has to happen" to fix the retirement safety net that has served workers for decades.Without changes to the system, younger taxpayers won't be able to collect Social Security after paying into it for years, Bush told a crowd today in Westfield, New Jersey. "If we act now, we can do it in a way that saves the system for younger workers," he said.
What a small-minded bully this man is. <$Ad$>When the public begins to turn against him all he can think to do is up the antics and the melodrama. "Something drastic has to happen." What a thing for a president to say? Think about it. Something drastic? FDR was right about more than just Social Security. Also with, The only thing we have to fear is fear itself. And it's good to remember that now because fear is the only thing this man has to peddle.
A new National Journal poll just out finds that disapproval of the president on Social Security risen to 61% from 52% in January.
And along those lines Bloomberg also tells us more about Rep. Mike Ferguson (R) of New Jersey, the president's host today in Westfield. Ferguson is another first-tier Social Security bamboozler who's repeatedly tried to hoodwink his constituents in just the same way as Rep. Heather Wilson or New Mexico.
And now we see, on the very day President Bush is in town, he's trying to slither away from his support for phasing out Social Security.
"The congressman still has a lot of questions that he's looking to get answered about the plans and proposals that are being talked about to strengthen Social Security," his spokesperson Abby Bird tells Bloomberg. He thinks private accounts maybe "part of the solution," but not the sole answer.
It's too late, isn't it? Ferguson's for phase-out and he has been for years. There's nothing left to figure out about it. The least he could do is be a stand-up guy about it like Santorum and say what he believes in even when the tide is turning against him.
--Josh Marshall
You can make a <$NoAd$>difference.
From Human Rights First (formerly the Lawyers Committee for Human Rights) ...
Iranian blogger and human rights activist Arash Sigarchi was sentenced to 14 years in prison on charges of "espionage and insulting the country's leaders." His harsh sentence, given by a Revolutionary Court on February 22, 2005, sends a stark message to other bloggers and independent government critics in Iran.Arash Sigarchi is editor of a daily newspaper in the province of Gilan and has run a social and political blog for the past three years. His blog has from time to time dealt with human rights issues and criticized government policies ...
Click here to read the rest of the story and find out what you can do right now to help get him released.
--Josh Marshall
As you've probably seen, all but three Senate Democrats signed the letter to President Bush today calling on the president to categorically reject phase-out in the form of private accounts paid for with Social Security funds.
The three were Conrad, Feingold and Nelson of Nebraska.
Conrad and Nelson aren't much of a surprise. But, to many, Feingold was.
I checked into this and it turns out that Sen. Feingold's mother just passed away and for that reason he is currently back in Wisconsin.
After speaking with a member of the senator's staff, it seemed clear to me that there was nothing more to read into his failure to sign the letter than that he was not in Washington to sign it and is understandably busy now attending to personal matters.
--Josh Marshall
So who got to go to the <$NoAd$> Bamboozlepalooza event in New Jersey today?
Says Gannet ...
Among those organizations [receiving tickets to distribute] are the chambers of commerce in Hunterdon and Union counties, the Somerset County Business Partnership and the New Jersey Business and Industry Association, Bird said. Those groups distribute their allotment at their discretion, she said.Organizations representing seniors, many of whom oppose the president's plan, did not receive tickets. Bird said that's because many seniors were among those who called in and are receiving individual tickets. The list of invitees includes firefighters, the families of military personnel serving in Iraq and the Democratic mayors of Fanwood and Summit, she said.
(ed.note: Thanks to this local site for alerting our attention to this passage.)
--Josh Marshall
Reader mail ...
While I understand leaving Joe in the faction, I'm not entirely sure why the other Senate faction signees haven't been bumped out on the basis of signing on. Joe is a special case, but for Landrieu and Carper, it'd seem like the letter would be a good enough statement of intent to revoke their faction membership.-J
Membership for Carper and Landrieu is now under review.
--Josh Marshall
Mums the word for Rep. Steve Buyer (R) of Indiana. From the Indianapolis Star: "Rep. Steve Buyer would not say whether he supports personal investment accounts." All the rest of the Republican House delegation from the state, including the Count, are private accounts men, says the Star.
--Josh Marshall
So Joe Lieberman signed the senate Democrats' letter insisting that phase-out (i.e., private accounts funded with Social Security dollars) has to be taken off the table once and for all before there can be any serious discussion of legislation to strengthen and extend the solvency of Social Security.
Good for them.
And really how could it be otherwise? It is no more complicated than saying that the option of euthanizing the patient has to be ruled out before there can be any real discussion of how to cure him.
And good for Joe.
With someone like Lieberman who's been out of the Faction, in the Faction, out and then back in again, I think it's too early to strike him from the rolls entirely. But you certainly can't be the Dean of the Faction if you're going to show signs like this of standing tall and doing the right thing. And certainly you can't be Dean when Sen. Kent "the Kernel" Conrad is way outdoing you in terms of Faintheartedness.
So Lieberman gives up the Deanship but for the moment at least remains in the Faction.
--Josh Marshall
In generalities, the point is widely understood. But in this article by Sidney Blumenthal from yesterday, the specifics are assembled together. The point being that nothing President Bush is saying now about Social Security is new. In fact, almost word for word his statements are close to identical to Republican attacks on Social Security from as far back as 1936.
A few examples.
The 1936 Republican platform: "Society has an obligation to promote the security of the people, by affording some measure of protection against involuntary unemployment and dependency in old age. The New Deal policies, while purporting to provide social security, have, in fact, endangered it ...the [trust] fund will contain nothing but the government's promise to pay ... [and is] unworkable."
Goldwater on Social Security from '64: "It promises more benefits to more people than the incomes collected will provide."
It's always been the same. The Trust Fund doesn't exist. The system is on the verge of bankruptcy. It can't deliver what it promises. The program should be voluntary.
All that is different now is that a sitting president has chosen to make a showdown over the issue.
I've said probably too many times over the last couple days that however they choose to dress it up and whatever sort of compromise they want to present it as, the president's goal is still phase-out. That's why he's invested so much in this politically. And if you want to grasp the stakes of all this -- both politically and in terms of policy -- just look at the fact that the White House is now redoubling its efforts to push privatization in the face of public opinion which appears to be congealing against them. They understand the consequences of defeat.
Now, you'll hear from me and others over the coming weeks and months all sorts of different jargon and policy particulars about caps and private accounts and add-on accounts and Trust Funds and rates of return and all the rest of it.
But the terms of this debate are actually pretty straightforward. The president and his supporters want to get the government out of the Social Security business by ending guaranteed benefits. It's really as simple as that. Not complicated. They'll put in its place some system of private accounts where you can save money on your own. And if it works out, great. If it doesn't, it's your problem.
Social Security is about spreading out the risk and the security by having near-universal participation in one program. That's what it is. You pay in through the course of your working years and after you retire you receive your guaranteed benefit every month for the rest of your life. It is that issue of guarantee -- which, in its nature, only a program like Social Security can provide -- which the president and his supporters are trying to do away with, either all at once or in stages.
So take away all of your policy particulars and computations and flow-charts and analyses. And set them to one side. That is the issue at the core of all of this debate. It defines what kind of society we live in. Its future rests in the hands of Senate Democrats. And all manner of honor or infamy is in store for the ones who make the difference.
--Josh Marshall
Several times recently we've mentioned Jason Furman, former Director of Economic Policy for the Kerry-Edwards Campaign and one of the Democrats' experts on Social Security policy. The Filibuster, the official blog of the Columbia Political Review, recently published an interview with Furman in which he discusses many of the key questions about Social Security and the unfolding debate over whether or not it should be phased-out.
--Josh Marshall
Would-be Social Security compromiser Rep. Clay Shaw (R) of Florida has a challenger in '06: State Sen. Ron Klein.
--Josh Marshall
Not just Frist.
You have to read down to the bottom of the article in tomorrow's Times. But it seems that the White House was also able to force a recantation from Sen. Chuck Grassley (R) Iowa, who yesterday suggested that the Congress should shift its focus from private accounts to solvency. Today Grassley released a statement saying: "Personal accounts are still on the table along with all the other ideas to strengthen Social Security."
That, of course, brings the number of White House-squeezed recanters to three: McCrery, Frist and Grassley, though today's reports left it unclear whether Frist and Grassley were taken to the Chamber like McCrery.
--Josh Marshall
The Post tomorrow says this about the president's warning to Democrats ...
Meanwhile yesterday, Bush warned that Democratic lawmakers may suffer politically if they continue to oppose his plan without offering alternatives. Americans are beginning to agree that Social Security needs revisions to safeguard its long-term stability, he said, adding: "In my judgment, ultimately, I think politicians need to be worried about not being a part of the solution."
At the risk of stating the obvious, there is one thing you can say for this president, as indeed you can for most presidents, though not to the same degree: With every major <$Ad$>policy he has pushed, whatever his level of belief in the substance of the legislation, he has done so with an eye to maximizing the political return at the next election.
Every single time: tax cuts, Iraq, Homeland Security, etc. Every single time.
So clearly if the president really believed that Democrats would be hurt politically if they got left off the phase-out bandwagon, he'd be pushing for a vote now, thus trying to put the Democrats at a maximum disadvantage in 18 months. But he isn't, or rather can't, because his Republicans are terrified of moving without the Democrats.
So on its face, what the president is saying is a crock.
But let's look at the assumption, or rather the spin, underlying it.
Increasingly, in recent days, the president and his surrogates have been arguing that while broad-based support for private accounts has yet to materialize, there is a growing public belief in the need for rapid and fundamental reform. And that, they reason, puts them in a position to win the debate because if the public believes major changes are necessary, and soon, they're the ones with the major reform on the table.
In essence, the president is arguing that while he has yet to win the argument, he and the White House are winning the predicate to the argument.
Only, all the polls say it's just the opposite.
Consider a few examples.
The recent CNN/USAToday poll found that the percentage of Americans who believe that major changes are needed "in the next year or two" was 38%. A month earlier that number was 49%.
The NBC/Wall Street Journal poll released a couple weeks ago showed that over the previous two months number of Americans who believe in "making some adjustments [to Social Security] but leaving the Social Security system basically as is" went from 39% in December, to 44% in January, to 50% in mid-February.
It's not always easy in the various polls to locate questions that go specifically to this issue. And it is further complicated by the fact that in the Times poll, for instance, as well as in some of the others, many of the questions are asked for the first time or for the first time in many years. So you can't get a sense of change over time.
What the polls do show is a rapidly increasingly awareness of the debate itself, which makes sense given the amount of news coverage. But as the recent Pew poll shows awareness of the debate correlates strongly with opposition.
In other words, the more folks know about the president's plan, the less they like it.
The simple truth is that the president isn't just losing the debate on private accounts and phase-out. He's also losing it on the underlying question of whether or not fundemental changes are necessary and whether the need for change is urgent.
--Josh Marshall
A few thoughts on where we are right now on the phase-out debate.
The president has hit a brick wall on his first attempt at beginning the phase out of Social Security. If you look at how the debate has evolved over the last six weeks and why the public is turning against the president's plan, you see that it has become increasingly clear to the public that private accounts damage Social Security.
Simple as that.
It takes money out of Social Security -- an extremely popular program -- and puts it toward creating the president's private accounts. You can't be for protecting or strengthening Social Security and also be for private accounts since the two goals are diametrically opposed, inimical to each other.
So it makes sense to call it what it is, a raid on Social Security. Not a raid on the Trust Fund as folks used to bandy about in the last decade. But snaking money out of Social Security itself.
That is still the president's preferred policy. And the public is turning against it.
So what is there to talk about as long as that is the case? The Democrats are for preserving Social Security; the president is for partially (or eventually totally) phasing it out and replacing it with private investment accounts and reduced guaranteed benefits.
The two objectives don't admit of compromise. The solution is to have a full public debate, see who the public supports, and then vote.
The president has the executive branch and both houses of Congress. He can pass what he wants if he can control his Republicans and scrape together a handful of Democrats in the senate.
But what basis could Democrats find on which to compromise as long as the president won't commit to maintaining and strengthening Social Security in its current form rather than partially phasing it out?
--Josh Marshall
Going to the Bamboozlepalooza event tomorrow in either Indiana or New Jersey? We want to hear about it. Admittedly, if you're a TPM Reader going to an event probably means standing outside and protesting like most regular Americans who aren't among the phase-out elect. But let us know what you see. And if you take pictures, send us those too.
--Josh Marshall
Noam Scheiber is dead right about the White House's new roundabout plans to phase out Social Security.
Read what he has to say.
There are many issues to discuss now that we've entered into a main phase of the Social Security battle -- one in particular will be to keep a close eye on Cato, Club for Growth and the rest of the money lobby to see how well they warm to the idea of the tax increases the president is now floating as a way to pay for his plan. But the first thing to do is to focus and understand where the Democrats are in this debate and what they are after, and for all of them to resolve that it really doesn't matter whether President Bush tries the front door to phase-out or the back door or whether he tries to break through the window or even just burn down the whole house. The goal is what counts. And the question is just what it is that people don't like about Social Security in its current form.
President Bush kicked off this struggle by trying to raid Social Security (not the Trust Fund, but the program itself) of a third of its funding to set up his private accounts. Having hit a brick wall with the Democrats and numerous defections from Republicans, he's now looking for a second roll of the dice. He'll now try to bargain with more options on the table, perhaps offering to phase out less of Social Security or -- and this is more likely -- extend the time over which the program is phased out.
But the goal is the same: phase-out. In that sense nothing has changed.
--Josh Marshall
You really do have to wonder about Factcheck.org and Social Security. They're like quadruple offenders at this point. And this one isn't even the worst.
--Josh Marshall
The White House whips Frist into line. Majority Leader commits to a phase-out bill this year, after having said the opposite only two days ago.
CQ provides Frist's feeble denial that he was manhandled by the White House: "I haven’t talked to anybody ... I said it could be a month or a year. From that, everybody was saying it’s going to be more than a year. I wanted to make it clear I’m going to be aggressive with it and it will be coming up this year."
--Josh Marshall
A note to pro-Social Security Oregonians: keep an eye on your senior senator. And, yes, Wyden (elected: 1/30/1996) was elected before Smith (elected: 11/05/96).
--Josh Marshall
White House enlists nation's bakeries <$NoAd$> in push for Social Security phase-out!
Last Thursday the White House invited representatives of various industries to a White House meeting with Karl Rove and National Economic Council Director Allan B. Hubbard, where the two gave a pep talk and outlined strategy for phasing out Social Security.
At the meeting was a representative of the Independent Bakers Association, who sent the following release to Association members providing an account of the meeting and explaining the bakers' role in the battle for phase-out ...
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Contact: Jan Cornelius
Tel 202.xxx.xxxx
[ed.note: number removed by editor]February 24, 2005
WHITE HOUSE COURTS IBA
Today, IBA staff attended a White House briefing addressing President George W. Bush's ambitious plan to overhaul the Social Security system. The Honorable Karl Rove, Deputy Chief of Staff and Senior Advisor to the President and the Honorable Al Hubbard, Assistant to the President and Director of the National Economic Council gave the briefing.
Karl Rove stressed the importance of Social Security reform on the President's domestic agenda. He said that the President felt in his soul that Social Security reform is vital for the future of the United States. He stressed the now well known fact that in the 1930s, when the program began, 16 people paid into the system to support one retiree, now 3.3 people support one retiree. The trend of more people paying into the system for each retiree will soon lead the nation into bankruptcy. Rove reported that the President wanted to solve the problem, not with half measures, but permanently, without raising payroll taxes.
Karl went on to say that the President will commit all his resources to fighting this issue. The President already visited nine states in his effort to bring about Social Security reform and he will remain on the road to spread the message. The President knows he will get opposition for the trade unions and left wingers. The American Association of Retired Persons (AARP) is still on the fence and supports some measures but not others. The President is willing to fight his opponents in this regard, including the AARP if they decide to oppose him.
Finally, Mr. Rove appealed to IBA to help educate the public about the challenges facing Social Security.
Al Hubbard, director of the National Economic Council, reiterated the Administration's position on Social Security reform by saying we are totally committed. He likened the President's enthusiasm for the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts to his position on saving Social Security. The Administration is worried about Social Security because the cost of doing nothing is immense. According to the government's research, the system will go from this year's surplus of $5.9 billion to no surplus in 2018 to a -$200 billion deficit in 2027! Al noted that the President could easily not tackle the Social Security issue, after all the system will only go into deficit in 2018. However, the President is dedicated to 'tackling the big problems facing America. Most Presidents wouldn't deal with such a contentious issue.
The Administration will try to fix the problem in three ways. One, inform the nation about the magnitude of the problem. Two, lobby Congress to get behind the plan. Three, stay open minded to solutions. The President realizes that Social Security reform is a difficult task and he is encouraging lawmakers for both sides of the aisle to work to come up with lasting solutions to this problem. Possible solutions include personal retirement accounts, however, higher taxes are not a solution.
The Administration will stick to three principals through the reform process. One, create a permanent fix to the problem. Two, no benefit changes for those born before 1950. Three, no payroll tax increases.
Mr. Hubbard reports that Social Security reform is the most important problem facing the nation. It affects all businesses and everyone's back pocket. He closed his prepared remarks by saying that the President is taking on this task because it is the right thing to do for America. The President does not view this as a political fight as many on the left do.
In a question and answer session Mr. Hubbard addressed the apparent wedge between the President and Republican lawmakers on this issue. He said that all Republicans he talked to support reforming Social Security and he downplayed reports to the contrary in the leftist media. As far as a timeline goes, the President began pushing for reform at the State of the Union Address and will continue his pressure on Congress to get bills out of each House by August. After Social Security reform the Administration is committed to reforming Medicare and Medicaid and tax reform.
More reporting soon on the dark underbelly of Bamboozlepalooza ...
--Josh Marshall
Is Bradley Smith on the level about the FEC and blogs? This guy says, no.
--Josh Marshall
Rep. Bob Ney (R) of Ohio signs in to the Conscience Caucus: "The White House has got to get off the table any talk about changing benefits. As long as that discussion is out there, this thing is going to sink faster than the Titanic. And anybody that thinks it’s not is just full of themselves.”
--Josh Marshall
If this is the law, then the law is an ass.
I'd like hear some more voices about the issues involved in this potential regulation and whether what FEC Commissioner Bradley Smith predicts is likely to come about. But if it's as he says, it really would mean the end of what this site and so many others on the right and left do.
--Josh Marshall
Acceptable rhetoric?
Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels, author of our current national deficits, attacked state Dems, saying they had "car-bombed" legislation he wanted to pass.
Says the Indianapolis Star: "These include the Colts stadium financing proposal and Daniels' plan to create a special prosecutor in state government who would work mostly in secret and report to him."
--Josh Marshall
This article in tomorrow's Star-Tribune has a nice summary of the batch of new Social Security polls out on Wednesday, including this one in the Times and this one from Pew.
Much of the data is in line with the recent CNN/USAToday poll.
But this number stands out: Pew found that President Bush's approval rating on Social Security stands at 29%.
--Josh Marshall
Et tu, DMN?
The Dallas Morning News on phase-out: "President Bush hasn't proposed a complete and specific Social Security overhaul plan, yet there are signs his efforts are already on life support ... And the longer the debate takes, the closer Mr. Bush is to becoming a lame duck."
--Josh Marshall
Novak surveys the field on phase-out, calls Lieberman "most prestigious potential compromiser."
--Josh Marshall
Putting the capital 'B' in Bamboozlepalooza, Cheney says he's joining the tour. The LA Times has a nice run-down of the new '60 stops in 60 days' tour.
Not your Daddy's Bamboozlepalooza?
--Josh Marshall
The Bergen Record gives the thumbs down to Bamboozlepalooza the day before it chugs into town: "President Bush is supposed to bring his Social Security road show to New Jersey tomorrow. But critical reviews indicate this production tour has been a flop. And hopefully it will soon reach the end of its run - without any Social Security privatization bill reaching Congress. In old Broadway lingo, the president's privatization proposal 'bombed in New Haven.'"
In other Jersey news, protestors gear up for Bamboozlepalooza in the Garden State.
--Josh Marshall
Sen. Craig Thomas (R) of Wyoming bailing out?
From the <$NoAd$>Jackson Hole News & Guide ...
Wyoming’s senior U.S. senator says the federal government must do something to change Social Security, but he is hesitant to embrace a plan for personal savings accounts put forth by the Bush administration.Sen. Craig Thomas, R-Wyo., said the federal government may not be "financially able" to take on the expense of the private savings plan, which he pegged at $2 trillion. Thomas said it does not make good financial sense to reduce the amount of money flowing into the Social Security trust fund at a time when payouts to baby boomers are projected to increase.
"I’m willing to talk about it, but I’m not persuaded at this point," Thomas said Thursday during a meeting with News&Guide reporters.
I'm not sure we would have predicted Thomas for the Caucus. But he's number 6.
(ed.note: Thanks to TPM Reader JA for keeping us up-to-date on what's going down in the Equality State.)
--Josh Marshall
The main battle begins. From Thursday's Post: "President Bush plans to intensify his campaign to win public and congressional support for restructuring Social Security, warning that it would be a bad idea to delay action as the Senate Republican leader has suggested and politically unwise for lawmakers to oppose private accounts, White House officials said yesterday."
Plus, two key grafs <$NoAd$>for the Fainthearted Faction chump-watch ...
The "scope and scale goes way beyond anything we have done," said Treasury Secretary John W. Snow, who heads to Arkansas today. The president is also privately discussing compromises to win Democratic backing and is likely to signal his support for new protections for low-income workers under Social Security, GOP sources said.Snow told reporters that Bush also has not ruled out embracing a plan backed by many Democrats to create government-subsidized personal savings accounts outside the existing system. White House officials are privately telling Republicans that Bush is opposed to the idea but does not want to say so because it would appear he is not willing to compromise.
The weak point is still the Senate Fainthearted Faction.
--Josh Marshall
Attention Arkansans!
Treasury Secretary John Snow will make a Bamboozlepalooza tour stop tomorrow at the UA's Walton College of Business in Fayetteville at 10 AM.
And it's actually open to the public!
These folks have the details.
--Josh Marshall
Sen. Santorum (R) of Pennsylvania tells the right to give his crew room for maneuver while senate Republicans try to lure across a few members of the Fainthearted Faction.
Says the Santorum Memo: "While we have been very careful not to alienate Democrats from coming forward with ideas, we also need to be frank with conservatives that we are in a negotiating phase. In order to broker a deal with Democrats, we must be willing to keep these ideas on the table that may be unpopular with the base. If we take these ideas off the table before we start negotiating, there will be no negotiations."
--Josh Marshall
It's time to put the list together: Who were the Republicans who supported President Bush's plan to raid Social Security to set up private accounts?
--Josh Marshall
A Loud and Proud member of the Conscience Caucus we had somehow missed: Rep. Mike Turner (R) of Ohio.
See this AP article for the citation. Also see the January 21st piece by Martin Gottlieb in the Dayton Daily News.
(ed.note: TPM Readers in Dayton, how could ya leave me hangin' like that?)
--Josh Marshall
Must the Grassley always be greener?
Sen. Chuck Grassley (R) of Iowa tells Iowa reporters: "Maybe we ought to focus on solvency, and bring people to the table just over what do you do for solvency for the next 75 years."
--Josh Marshall
Down At Law!
Earlier we brought you word that lawyers for Rep. Jim McCrery had gotten a TV ad pulled from a local cable TV station by threatening a lawsuit over the ad's claim that McCrery supports 'privatization'.
According to Campaign for America's Future (CAF) spokesperson Toby Chaudhuri, though, late this afternoon CAF supplied the station in question with materials substantiating the claims made in the ad and the station has agreed to begin showing the ad again this evening.
We caught up with CAF co-director Roger Hickey, who told us the following ...
Cong. McCrery, who has been beaten up by the White House lately to keep him in line on Social Security privatization, tried to use those same intimidation tactics on TV stations and cable systems in his own district -- to keep our ad off the air. Luckily those Louisiana broadcasters were not as easily intimidated as McCrery. Instead, they chose to honor the First Amendment. And as a result, the people of Shreveport, Louisiana get to participate in a real debate about privatization, benefit cuts, and the Bush-McCrery plan to dismantle Social Security.Ironically, our media buy would have run out before Treasury Secretary Snow arrived in Louisiana. But this challenge and delay means that our ad will still be running for Snow's visit to shore up the sagging Mr. McCrery.
Not a good day for Shifty <$NoAd$>Jim.
At this point we're wondering if McCrery's lawyers are looking into 'being mean' as a possible cause of action.
--Josh Marshall
Amazing. Rep. Jim McCrery (R) of Louisiana has gotten a local cable TV station to stop running an ad questioning his stance on Social Security by threatening to sue for defamation because the ad claims he wants to "privatize" Social Security.
McCrery, of course, openly supports diverting Social Security payroll taxes to create private accounts, i.e., privatization.
As it happens, Rep. McCrery is something of a past master at the old 'privatization' word game flimflam. Just before the 2002 election, when the National Journal asked him whether Republican pledges to oppose 'privatization' would complicate later efforts to pass the Bush plan, he responded thus ...
In the view of Rep. Jim McCrery, R-La., a key member of the House Ways and Means Committee, Republican candidates aren't boxing themselves in on the issue. "Most Republicans say they oppose Social Security privatization," McCrery said. "That doesn't hurt us. So far, only one or two have said they have a problem with personal retirement accounts."
That's old Shifty Jim.
--Josh Marshall
Lest there be any doubt about the new statement from Secretary Snow reported in CQToday, this is part of a renewed sixty day push for phase-out,as reported in Congress Daily PM. Diverting payroll taxes into private accounts is the most obvious but far from the only way to phase out Social Security. And that is still clearly the goal. Money can be shifted around in creative ways. Private accounts can be created on the outside which intentionally bankrupt the Social Security program, etc.
So for the moment, while recognizing the sign of desperation that this is, it would be foolish to see this as anything but a strategic retreat made in order to keep alive the original objective.
The president has spent three months pushing for phase-out. That's still his goal. It remains to him to put a concrete proposal on the table.
--Josh Marshall
The Count may not want to suck your blood. But it sounds like he does want to know your party ID before he lets you in to the Bamboozlepalooza event in South Bend ...
This from the AP...
Tickets to President Bush's trip on Friday to the University of Notre Dame are not being made available to the general public.Tickets for the president's stop to promote his Social Security reform proposal are being distributed to local groups on a nonpartisan basis through the office of Rep. Chris Chocola, a White House spokesman said.
Chocola spokesman Brooks Kochvar said that the tickets were being distributed through business and student groups and community organizations throughout the Republican congressman's northern Indiana district.
Kochvar said tickets would not be made available directly through Chocola's district office and that groups receiving the tickets would be able to give them to whomever they want.
When asked whether there is any way for the general public to obtain tickets to see the president, Kochvar said, "Not right now."
Sounds like Rep. Mike <$NoAd$> Ferguson (R) has a similar arrangement in NJ. But we're still checking on that.
--Josh Marshall
Uncle?
Just out from CQToday ...
Treasury Secretary John W. Snow indicated Wednesday that the White House would accept a Social Security overhaul that does not divert the program’s payroll taxes into personal retirement accounts, a major shift in the administration’s position.
More soon ...
--Josh Marshall
If you have a moment, I'd be much obliged if you could fill out a short reader survey over at Blogads.com. It helps with the advertisers. Just put down Talking Points Memo as the referring blog. Thanks. I appreciate it.
--Josh Marshall
Lieberman not a Faction man after all?
See today's update in the New Haven Register (registration required).
I'll be busy with some non-TPM responsibilities for the next couple hours. But more on the new article then.
--Josh Marshall
New Bamboozlepalooza appearances <$NoAd$> are slated for Alabama, Louisiana and New Jersey.
On that score, we were interested to see that the Montgomery Advertiser puts Sen. Shelby (R) down as a member of the Conscience Caucus. Specifically, they call him one of the state's two Republican "holdouts" on the Bush Social Security plan.
In Westfield, New Jersey, the president's host, Rep. Mike Ferguson (R), says the president "wants to speak to, listen to and talk to residents from around the state."
But the town's lone Democratic town councilman notes that...
If the event is being billed as a town hall meeting for the purpose of eliciting views on one of his policy initiatives, there would be an expectation that people having differing views may be in attendance.
This of course is a reference to the apparent decision to restrict the townhall meeting to avowed supporters of the president.
On the other hand, Rep. Ferguson doesn't think there's a problem...
My sense is the people who would be most interested in being in an event with the president will be ones who are supporters... And I think it's important to hear constructive criticism ... that doesn't include disruptive behavior or obnoxiousness.
Rep. Ginny Brown-Waite (R) of Florida is to appear tomorrow on C-SPAN's Washington Journal where she presumably will not be able to have all questions screened in advance.
And we will, of course, have more coming on the Count.
--Josh Marshall
Quite a strong couple days for the phase-out forces, wasn't it?
The Post and the Times tomorrow both have articles that all but call the president's push for private accounts dead. And while I'm not near ready to go that far, it certainly does look like the more people hear, the less they like it.
The most publicized data point in this regard is the recent USAToday/CNN poll which shows, across a series of related questions, that the president has fallen about ten points on Social Security in the last month. It's not quite free-fall, though it's probably enough to induce a bit of a sensation of weightlessness. But this sounding is in line with other recent polls which have pointed to a similar deterioration.
But with all this bad blood, I think I can see the path to a bipartisan compromise, at least between the White House and the Democrats, if not with the congressional GOP. President Bush wants to keep hitting the hustings in Republican-held districts and pressuring wavering GOP representatives to sign on to Social Security phase-out, hoping that persistence will shift the trendline back in favor of private accounts. And at this point I think the Democratic leadership up on the hill probably agrees that this is a very good thing.
--Josh Marshall
Let's all take a deep breath, appreciate the gravity of the moment, and then burst out laughing at the hapless representative from the 4th district of Louisiana, Rep. Jim McCrery (R).
Since it garnered a lot of media attention, you probably saw that the Campaign for America's Future -- one of the lead pro-Social Security advocacy groups -- started running ads in McCrery's district knocking him for being in the pocket of Wall Street interests set to gain from privatization.
It was a tough ad. But in the day of Swift Boats and the gay-loving AARP, it hardly charted any new territory in aggressive political speech. And it had the added benefit of being pretty undeniably factual.
So what does our man McCrery do? He's threatening to bring the courts in to enforce the Social Security speech code and get the ad pulled off the air.
According to an AP story which ran mid-evening on Tuesday, Rep. McCrery had his lawyer write a letter to the stations running the ad claiming that the ad is false and defamatory and threatening that running it "exposes you to possible legal liability."
And what was the defamatory claim, exactly?
The letter says what's defamatory is the ad's claim "U.S. Rep. McCrery wants to privatize Social Security and cut our guaranteed benefits."
This one really shoots McCrery to the top of the list of arch-social security bamboozlers. Republicans don't have to call privatization 'privatization' anymore. And they can try to jawbone reporters out of using the term. But presumably the word itself has yet to become itself a cause of action. And cut your guaranteed benefits? Can't we hit McCrery's dingbat lawyer for threatening like a frivolous lawsuit or something? No one denies that the president's plan will cut guaranteed benefits. The claim is only that private accounts might make up the shortfall.
I mean, it's hard to know how much to belabor this man's ridiculousness. But perhaps it is enough to see it as a sign of the low ebb to which phase-out has arrived that a representative who has already flip-flopped on this issue twice in the last six weeks is now responding to a hostile political ad by threatening legal action for making claims that are demonstrably factual.
--Josh Marshall
There he goes again.
Shortly after the second former high official in the White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives charged the administration with basic indifference to the much-ballyhooed idea of empowering people of faith to deal with entrenched social problems, George W. Bush went out again today and made a speech on the subject. And again, he acted as though there wasn't a whole lot he could do about inaction in the Congress, which his party controls top-to-bottom.
The bigger issue, of course, is that Bush did not bother to include the simplest and least controversial part of his original faith-based initiative--a charitable contribution deduction for non-itemizers--in his latest budget. As in past years, this tax cut got bumped from the menu of revenue goodies in favor of tax cuts aimed at high earners--you know, those folks of whom Jesus Christ said: "It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God." (Matthew 19:24).
Now I don't know how the 250 "religious leaders" who heard Bush's pithy remarks today felt about them. But given the administration's consistent unwillingness to support a relatively small tax break that could help religious charities--even as it piles up debt into the many trillions, including an end to the federal inheritence tax, which will hurt religious charities--I hope someone in the audience remembered what Jesus said just before the passage cited above. "For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also." (Matthew 19:21).
Thus endeth the evening lesson.
--Spencer Ackerman
The re-redistrictng Power Grab isn't the only mischief being cooked up by the Republicans in my home state of Georgia. Interestingly enough, there's a big fight underway over GOP-sponsored legislation that would shield public incentives for corporate relocations from public scrutiny.
If this sounds obscure and parochial to you, think again. One of the most destructive habits in state economic development strategies is the chronic battle between states to attract business investment by giving away the store in the form of tax rebates, free property, exemptions from regulations, and other corporate subsidies that create hidden, long-term costs in exchange for tangible, short-term announcements of new jobs and investment. And in turn, this is the basic approach to economic development--a race to the bottom in which all public priorities are sacrificed to the goal of lavishing money and power on "job creaters"--that Bush-era Republicans have made our national strategy for growth.
The rationale for the Georgia legislation, of course, is that it's designed to keep smokestack chasers from rival states from identifying and sweetening the deal being offered to fidgety corporate leaders. But it obviously makes it a lot easier for state wheeler-dealers to keep those taxpayers who are underwriting the deals from finding out about the price tag, or in some cases, the less tangible cost of new development in terms of environmental resources, traffic, housing, schools and the overall quality of life.
The GOP bill has already passed the Georgia House, but is in trouble in the Senate, where all 22 Democrats are opposed, and some Republicans, especially from high-growth areas, as getting jumpy. They should be jumpy, and Democrats should hang tough.
Compared to some states, Georgia has been relatively reluctant over the years to trade away its resources and revenues in corporate subsidies. In fact, as it happens, I once wrote a speech for a Georgia Governor who said Georgians should stop thinking of development as something that was delivered to them "on the wings of a pinstriped angel from Atlanta with a prospect in his hip pocket," and should instead focus on building growth from within, through better education, a skilled workforce, a strong quality of life, and a good atmosphere for home-grown business startups.
That healthy tradition is under attack in Georgia right now, in many other states, and in Washington, and it's good to see Democrats fighting back.
--Spencer Ackerman
My last, sunnily optimistic post about Bush's likely defeat on Social Security has already been interpreted by Matt Yglesias and Atrios as an effort to provide "political cover" for Joe Lieberman's reported effort to cut a bogus "deal" with Lindsay Graham. Wrong-o, folks.
What I actually said, not very ambiguously, is that one of two Dems ain't going to save Bush's bacon on this. After acknowledging that I might be right (or wrong) about that, Matt argues that the possible irrelevance of Lieberman's deal-sniffing is "no excuse for doing it." I agree entirely.
Let me be clear about this: I see no political or substantive justification for Lieberman offering to reach agreement with GOPers on Social Security, particularly at this moment. It's a very bad idea. And this pains me far more, I am sure, than it pains guys like Atrios who've probably wanted to throw Joe off a cliff for years now. And if the reports are true, it represents the sort of pattern of misjudgment (e.g., the framing of the homeland security debate, and, in tandem with Dick Gephardt, the quick embrace of Bush's version of the Iraq war resolution) that led a sizeable number of New Dems to support other candidates for president (some for Edwards, some for Clark, some for Dean, some, like me, for Kerry) in the 2004 primaries.
Having said that, I'd be lying to you if I got on the bandwagon and said I believed a Lieberman step towards a "deal" on Social Security was something to panic about, or, as Matt put it, "exactly the thing [the Bushies] need to regain momentum on this issue." Worst-case scenario is that Lieberman gets a press conference with a couple of Republican Senators, after which the Right howls down the idea of a payroll tax increase and Democrats disassociate themselves in masse from Lieberman's position. It's still a really bad idea, but it will be Lieberman, not Democrats or Social Security itself, who will be the loser.
Look, I've tried to be a Party Unity Eagle Scout since starting my own blog, despite a lot of provocation to get into fights over stereotypes about the DLC held by people who aren't much interested in reading what I have to say unless it reinforces those stereotypes. So I understand the need for unity on Social Security and other topics right now. But unity is a means to an end--beating Bush on the dangerous things he's trying to do to our country, and working towards a strong, alternative progressive message for Democrats that expands our base. It shouldn't become a complete end in itself.
Right now the blogosphere is full of talk about litmus tests and purges, whether or not they contribute to either of those goals. And if the email I'm getting about Lieberman is any indication, we're getting close to litmus tests and purges about litmus tests and purges ("Are you now, or have you ever been, opposed to kicking Joe Lieberman out of the party?").
So let's keep a little perspective about what's primary and secondary in the fights just ahead. Maybe the hellish pressure on Lieberman to step back from a bogus deal will work, maybe not. If he goes ahead, let's make it clear he does not speak for other Democrats, and minimize the potential damage instead of acting like Bush has already won. And after we win, there will be plenty of time to play back the tapes and pin the tail on errant donkeys, in a calmer climate.
--Spencer Ackerman
Yesterday Senate Finance Committee chairman Sen. Chuck Grassley said Bush's Social Security plan ain't going anywhere unless there is a significant shift in public opinion. This morning's Washington Post reports the White House is telling its allies they have at most six weeks to turn public opinion around.
How big a shift will be necessary to produce a turnaround for Bush? Well, Ruy Teixeira has usefully summarized the latest polls on the subject, and (1) Bush's support level on Social Security is clearly in the high 30s at best, and (2) support for his "plan" drops the more voters hear about it.
I might add that on big changes in American government--and even American life--like this, opposition tends to harden over time, barring some particular change in the environment.
Sure, no one should misunderestimate the ability of the White House to push this thing right up to the gates of delerium, but let's also remember Bush's M.O.--he'll act like he's headed for victory right up to the minute he suddenly decides tax reform or the budget or some other element of the "ownership society" is suddenly more urgent.
He's going to lose this fight, folks, whether or not one or two Democrats in the House or the Senate give him "cover" by offering some sort of deal that neither party will accept.
--Spencer Ackerman
From the Post: "The Treasury Department yesterday announced the formation of a Social Security 'war room' ... The war room, which the administration is calling the Social Security Information Center, will track lawmakers' remarks to their local news outlets, to help the White House detect signs of Republican concern or Democratic compromise."
Gone for a day and someone tries to poach my gig?
Alright I'm outta here ... Back to Ed.
--Josh Marshall
This may surprise some of you, but I rarely if ever get any email from Republicans. But TPM gets email from the whole world, and today I received quite a few from people wanting to know why I wasn't posting anything about Lebanon. Not having any particular thing to say about the happy contingency of the apparent collapse of the pro-Syrian government there, I didn't worry about it much, until I got an email referring to this event as part of a "democracy domino." And then I got it: those insistent correspondents were suggesting that I, as a Democrat, was indifferent to the latest triumph of Bush administration foreign policy.
Now I am aware the State Department made the appropriate noises, as its predecessors would have done, after the Hariri assassination, about Syrian dominance of Lebanon, and I also know the Bush administration has been generally hostile towards the Syrian government, as has been U.S. policy for as long as I can remember. But it literally never crossed my mind that Bush's fans would credit him with for this positive event, as though his pro-democracy speeches exercise some sort of rhetorical enchantment.
This is the kind of thinking, of course, that has convinced God knows how many people that Ronald Reagan personally won the Cold War. It's the old post hoc ergo propter hoc (after this, therefore because of this) logical fallacy. This is a president and an administration that chronically refuse to accept responsibility for the bad things that have happened on their watch--even things like the insurgency in Iraq that are directly attributable to its policies. Barring any specific evidence (provided, say, by Lebanese pro-democracy leaders)that Bush had anything in particular to do with Syria's setbacks in Lebanon, I see no particular reason to high-five him for being in office when they happened.
Let us congratulate the Lebanese, not those in Washington who would take credit for their accomplishments.
--Spencer Ackerman
One of the temptations of guest-blogging on a battleship site like TPM is linking to your own tugboat site. I've avoided this temptation in terms of my past nuggets of wisdom on the subjects addressed in today's TPM, but since there's fresh copy of potential interest to readers on the other site, I'll just say this: for those of you interested in the slow-motion coup underway in the Georgia re-redistricting scam, check out the latest from that obsessive cracker over at NewWhatchamacallit.
--Spencer Ackerman
What is it they say about the five questions every journalist should answer in every news report? Who, what, when, why, where, right?
The intriguing David Kirkpatrick piece in today's New York Times about a group of Hollywood celebrities intervening in the Rhode Island Senate race kinda flunks that test.
Yeah, the "what" is explained pretty thoroughly: the letter blasts the likely Senate candidacy of Democratic U.S. Rep. Jim Langevin, for his "radically anti-choice" views. And it endorses the candidacy of Langevin's potential Democratic rival, R.I. Secretary of State Matt Brown.
But the "who" and "where" part gets kinda murky. While the identity of the group's leader, Victoria Hopper (His Infernal Majesty Dennis' spouse), is clear, you have to read down seven graphs to infer they are all women. And you never learn the name of the letter's addressee. Is it an open letter? A letter to the Democrats of Rhode Island? A letter to the alleged ringleader of the conspiracy to tap Langevin, Democratic Senatorital Campaign Committee chair Sen. Chuck Schumer? (If it was addressed to Shumer, I'm sure he was surprised to see himself described as a "conservative Democrat.")
I obviously don't know the answer to that question, but it raises another one: What did the signatories to this missive hope to accomplish?
I have no particular brief for Langevin, and I do have a favorable impression of Matt Brown. Moreover, I do not think you have to nominate pro-life candidates to convey a more inclusive message on abortion or other cultural issues. And finally, I fully acknowledge that any group of Democratic women, of whatever size or provenance, has the moral standing to address the issue of their own right to choose in whatever forum they prefer.
But given current perceptions of the Democratic Party, I can't see it does a lot of good for Hollywood muckety-mucks to instruct Democrats on the other side of the country about the candidates they are permitted to run for office, even the day after Oscar Night. Let the Democratic voters of Rhode Island sort this one out.
--Spencer Ackerman
One of the most amusing features of the Bush presidency has been W.'s frequent pretence that he has no influence at all over his party in Congress. Here's a guy who's been relentlessly marketed as a World-Historical Figure, a veritable Collossus astride the currents of world affairs, who has terrified al Qaeda into inaction and is now busily extending freedom and democracy to the benighted corners of the globe. Yet when it suits his purposes, Bush acts like a ninny-faced weakling in terms of his clout with GOPers on the Hill.
Usually he peforms this act when he wants to endorse a popular initiative without running the risk that it will actually be written into law, such as the extension of the Assault Weapons Ban or the tougher provisions of Intelligence Reform. According to Connolly and Balz in today's Washington Post, however, he's using a variation of this pose in negotiations with the nation's governors over the future of Medicaid: do it my way, or those Bad Elephants in Congress will do Bad Things to you.
The Budget Budget, as you may recall, proposed $60 billion in Medicaid "savings" through action on ill-defined "loopholes" in the program. In the run-up to Bush's personal meeting with the governors, his HHS Secretary, Mike Leavitt, suggested that the states should cut a deal with the administration lest Congress find some really hurtful ways to come up with the "savings." This is probably a thinly veiled reference to that hardy perennial of GOP budgeting, a Medicaid "cap" that would just arbitrarily limit federal spending on the program and let states cut services or eligibility to make ends meet. Indeed, the administration itself embraced the "cap" blame-shift as recently as last year.
Reading beetween the lines, the "deal" Bush and Leavitt seem to want is an agreement to crack down on states that are allegedly gaming the program for extra dollars, and to crack down on middle-class families who are allegedly gaming the program by shifting assets around to qualify for long-term nursing home care under Medicaid. To be sure, the administration will offer states plenty of new "flexibility" in exchange for helping Bush deal with his deliberately engineered budget crisis, but it will be flexibility to cut benefits, not to improve health services. Indeed, the other weapon the administration has in its quiver is to go hog wild with Medicaid waivers to let Republican governors like Haley Barbour and Jeb Bush do their worst.
Fortunately, there doesn't seem to be any big impetus among the govs--especically Democratic govs--to cut a deal. And the best comment on the whole Bush gambit was by Arizona Gov. Janet Napolitano: "What I'm worried about is this is all about the budget and not about health care reform."
Since we are talking about the country's main health care safety net program, which is the last line of support keeping millions of low-income families from joining the already-obscene levels of the uninsured, that's the heart of the matter.
--Spencer Ackerman
So, Bush comes home from his big European trip, and what's the first thing out of his mouth? You got it: time to push forward on Social Security! He stated his intentions with the air of a guy who's just picking up the first thing in his inbox after being away from the office a few days.
This is, of course, the immutable M.O. of this particular politician. Going back to his career in Texas, his approach to any big issue is to stake out his maximum position, and then repeat it endlessly until it's time to count the votes. Then he'll cut a deal, flip-flop shamelessly, or change the subject, depending on what he can and can't get.
Down south where I'm from, this tactic is known as the Redneck Theory of Seduction. It involves repeating one's demands tirelessly, in hopes that the victim will succumb out of sheer fatigue. It's a subtle as a hammerhead shark.
--Spencer Ackerman
I really hate to start this guest-blog gig with bad news, but in case you missed it, Iraqi insurgents just pulled off their deadliest suicide bombing yet, killing at least 125, in an attack apparently aimed at police recruits.
--Spencer Ackerman
I'm gonna turn over the keys to this operation for a couple days. So this is a sign-off post. But before I go, a few points.
First off, every sign I see tells me that Sen. Lieberman is looking to cut a deal of some sort with Sen. Lindsey Graham (R) of South Carolina and thus with the White House. It would be a kinder, gentler phase-out. But phase-out just the same.
Individually, Lieberman's vote isn't that consequential. At present I don't think the White House could get majority votes for a phase-out bill in either chamber. But give the president and the congressional leadership that bipartisan cover they've been hunting for and things could change very, very quickly. Lieberman would probably put a few more Senate Dems in play and also firm up the whole Republican caucus. Same thing in the House.
As I said, I think the probable deal involves raising the cap and using those new funds for private accounts, thus getting around the idea that it's a 'carve-out'. Of course, you can imagine other permutations. And there's no limit to the policy creativity of a truly faint heart. Whether such a compromise would ever fly or not is another question. But I suspect it's largely beside the point because once you're to that point you're into a process of legislative horse-trading and conference committees. And whether or not some people on the hill realize it, the Republicans control both houses of congress and the White House. So at that point they can pretty much do what they want.
You do have to wonder -- really, really wonder -- about the roots of the urge to split the difference on phase-out seeing as the public is against it and turning more against with time. The policy and the politics are both lined up on one side of the ledger on this one. This isn't about garnering lots of press as the dealmaker, invites to the chat shows or the yearned-for plaudits of an increasingly right-leaning dinner-party centrism. And it shouldn't be about angling for mentions in the Post's increasingly fatuous Social Security editorials. This is about saving Social Security and now about preserving it for a long time to come.
So, Lieberman's the weakpoint in the wall against Social Security phase-out. Sen. Carper too -- but, my gut tells me, not as much as Joe. So if there's a time to pull out all the stops to save Social Security, to mobilize pressure and exert coercive persuasion, now's the time and Lieberman's the guy.
If anything, the press coverage has understated just had badly the Republicans got hammered out in those townhalls last week. So I'm going to be really curious to see if there are any more shake-ups in the Conscience Caucus as a result. I've gotten a partial transcript of some of the stuff Rep. Chris Chocola (R) of Indiana said at his townhall meeting back in South Bend. So there's more of his funny-business to be discussed. Even more though, watch for signs of lots of them wanting to cut a deal and get out.
So, that's it for me for now. I'm going to be turning over the keys to Ed Kilgore of NewDonkey.com and the Democratic Leadership Council. (And for those of you who are most accustomed to thinking of the DLC as a topic in theodicy, be nice.) Ed's a good friend. I'm a big fan of his site. And he's an extremely shrewd observer of American politics in all its facets, both high and low. I'm looking forward to reading what he has to say.
--Josh Marshall
I'm a big fan of Sen. Joe Biden (D) of Delaware. But I usually figure him for a foreign policy and judiciary guy, rather than a big hitter on domestic policy. But take a look at his appearance today with Sen. Santorum (R) on Meet The Press (which you can see here and read here).
He hits all the key points. Like: "No matter how you cut it, this real debate on personal accounts is about the legitimacy of Social Security; it's not about the solvency of Social Security."
Yes, just so.
Or this: "And the presumption that Social Security can't meet its obligations rests on the notion that the federal government will default, something it's never done in 220 years, on an obligation, on Treasury notes, IOUs, just like the IOUs Japan has and other countries have in terms of buying our Treasury bonds. And so I don't think we'll default."
So true!
It was a minor masterpiece of counter-bamboozlism.
--Josh Marshall
Brennon Morioka, Hawaii GOP chairman: "I think Social Security as it is has served its purpose."
--Josh Marshall
The Count, Rep. Chris Chocola (R) of Indiana, just won't quit.
He continues to deny that he ever supported privatization, let alone privatizing all of Social Security. Chocola claims that anyone who says this is either making it up or distorting his words.
So just for the record let's put down, word for word, what he told an editorial board meeting with the Elkhart Truth back in October 2000 ...
"Bush's plan of individual investment of 2 percent of the money is a start. Eventually, I'd like to see the entire system privatized. It's not a 'risky scheme.' There will be a series of investment options for people, professionally managed. If one isn't performing for you, you can change every year. We're not going to let people invest all of their money in Yahoo!People will be smart enough to understand their risk level. I believe people can make good decisions, and I know they ask really good questions before they make decisions. Will somebody screw it up? No question. But the government is screwing up the whole thing right now.
The whole thing is optional, and it's good for a couple of reasons. One, it's your money and nobody can touch it. It doesn't end up being borrowed by the federal government to pay off other things. Two, it gives you a much better return than you'd ever get out of Social Security. Right now, younger people are getting a negative return on their money.
The stock market has performed at 8 percent return over the past 70 years - that's through wars and depression. If you give people the opportunity, they'll build their self reliance and self respect because they'll be making a direct impact on their lives."
Less than a <$Ad$>month later, on the eve of the election, as his campaign started to swirl down the tubes, Chocola said that claims that he supported a total privatization of Social Security were false: "There is no one proposing, including me, a plan of total privatization."
When he ran again in 2002 he said: "I do not support the privatization of Social Security."
Yesterday at his townhall meeting, according to the South Bend Tribune, he claimed that "allowing people to divert a portion of their payroll taxes into personal accounts is at least one part of the final solution on Social Security."
Final solution? How about, is that your final answer?
--Josh Marshall
Longview (Texas) News-Journal, Feb. 26th: "Former U.S. House Majority Leader Dick Armey said Friday that Social Security should be phased out rather than saved."
So there it is. Not only does Armey think Social Security should be "phased out", he believes, as he is quoted as saying in the article, that the eventual effect of the Bush plan will be phase-out.
(Read the whole article, which gives the context, but the exact quote in which he used this phase is when he says that: "I think if you leave people free to choose, it will be phased out by competition." This of course is another way of saying that if you let people pull their payroll taxes out of Social Security it will eventually cripple the program.)
Now, in case folks need a precise flow-chart of how to work this, Dick Armey is the head of FreedomWorks. And FreedomWorks is one of the three or four major groups funding and organizing the push for President Bush's privatization plan.
So the head of one of the main groups funding the PR blitz for President Bush's privatization plan says Social Security should be "phased out" and that the eventual effect of the Bush plan will be phase out.
And one other thing, can we get a video or transcript of this talk?
(ed.note: Thanks to this fellow for letting me know about this wonderful article.)
--Josh Marshall
We hear from our observers <$NoAd$>on the scene that Rep. Chris Chocola's (R) meeting in South Bend last night was a bit more raucous than this article in the South Bend Tribune lets on. And they say it was pretty raucous.
In an interview later with the Tribune, Chocola showed again that if patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel (a la Dr. Johnson), Moveon.org is the last excuse of House Republicans who get a shellacking at their Social Security townhall events. Chocola claimed that Moveon TV ads from a couple weeks ago "may have played a role in the demeanor of the South Bend session."
(For a general overview of the mood on Social Security in the Indiana meetings -- including the 
Count's rough ride -- see this piece in today's Indianapolis Star.)
We were particularly interested in Chocola's response to a question about raising the cap on the payroll tax. A Notre Dame professor named Marty Wolfson cited what appears to have been the SSA's new actuarial memo (or perhaps an earlier iteration of it), which shows that eliminating the payroll tax cap would keep Social Security solvent through 2079 and beyond. Chocola replied that "if it was that easy, it would have been done already" and then went on to say that it wouldn't make any difference anyway since the Trust Fund doesn't really exist.
Then, according to the Tribune, Chocola attempted what can only be called a bravura performance in misunderstanding cause and effect. Chocola argued, according to Tribune reporter James Wensits, that "if the government had not borrowed the money from Social Security it would have borrowed it elsewhere, and the money would still have been spent."
Now, if Chocola really said this, it's one of those statements that gets so many things wrong or upside down that it's hard to know where to begin. But let's at least start by noting that the federal government does not have to run big annual deficits that make it harder than it need be to make good on future obligations to Social Security. Second, Chocola either doesn't grasp or ignores the main point. Had the money not been borrowed from Social Security, the issue is not that it would still have been spent. The issue is that had the money been borrowed from anywhere else but Social Security we wouldn't even be hearing a peep about the idea of not paying it back.
We'll have more on the Count later -- including more about why he just can't admit that only four years ago he supported privatization of the entire Social Security program.
(ed.note: A special note of thanks to our South Bend correspondent DR.)
--Josh Marshall
Phase-out "hits a wall" in Texas, reports the Houston Chronicle. Rep. DeLay says he's "very disappointed" that only a third of GOP reps. held meetings in their districts last week.
--Josh Marshall
Rep. John Mica (R) of Florida phones in to the Associate Editor of The St. Augustine Record from his phase-out bunker.
Mica, who is holding no meetings on Social Security this week or apparently even in his district this week, tells Margo Pope that "the details are sketchy," and he'll wait for more before taking a position. As for private accounts, said Mica from his undisclosed location, "I am concerned about making any investments (of Social Security) funds in speculative funds."
Apparently he was even more concerned two years ago when he responded to an AARP questionnaire by pledging: "I do not support replacing any part of the current Social Security system with individual accounts.”
Mica's district has the 12th highest numbers of retirees of any in the country and he wouldn't even show his face in his district last week.
--Josh Marshall
There are two important and telling articles on the Social Security debate in tomorrow's papers, one in the Times and another in the Post, both looking at two sides of the same coin: the collapse of the president's initial effort to phase out Social Security.
The Times piece, by Sheryl Gay Stolberg and Robin Toner, confirms what you could glean if you've been reading the papers closely for the last week: the Republicans' townhall meetings on Social Security have ranged from so-so to terrible, with a few cases that were little short of riots. And they're coming back to DC with an even worse case of the phase-out-willies than they left with.
Sen. Chuck Grassley (R) of Iowa tells the Times, in so many words, that unless the president can pull off a major turnaround in public opinion on this issue, it's over. He goes on to say: "I think 90 percent of the lifting is with the president. That process is starting, but it's starting very slow because too many Republicans and Democrats - how would you say it? - don't have the confidence that this issue is ever going to come up."
There you go right there. And Grassley has also inadvertantly touched on one of the reasons being score-keeper for the Conscience Caucus has become more difficult in recent days. Folks just don't want to say anything because they're not at all sure this thing's ever even going to come to a vote. And the last place you want to be if you're running next year is to have put your phase-out cards on the table -- to get all Loud & Proud about it, shall we say -- for no reason at all.
Which brings us to Sen. Rick Santorum (R) of Pennsylvania, who's probably gotten knocked around this week about as bad as any middle-aged prizefighter in one too many fights for that final payday. Nothing's for sure, certainly. But a year and a half or so from now we may look back and say, this was the week this guy's goose got cooked. Because he has wrapped himself tight in the phase-out flag and I think it's going to turn out -- judged by the most objective measure: whether the thing goes down in flames -- that he's on the wrong side of the American people on this one, not to mention Pennsylvanians.
Now, from the Times move over to the piece in the Post which focuses on Republicans who are desperate for a deal to cut to get out of this mess and, well ... and the Democrats who love them. The dealmakers they talk about are Rep. Clay Shaw (R) of Florida and the Private Accounts Book Club man, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R) of South Carolina. The writers of the Post piece -- John Harris and Jim VandeHei -- then go on to plumb the debate about how similar the present situation is to the health care debate from 1994.
The real bottom line in this article, however, is the crew of Dems eager to toss a life-line to the president just as the American people are turning hard against phase-out. Take Rep. Shaw's possible compromise deal, as described in the Post: Republicans give Dems some of their add-on accounts and in return the president agrees to phase-out less of Social Security than he initially wanted -- 2 percent of payroll rather than 4 percent.
Such a deal! Republicans at their town halls are getting treated like off-pitch singers on the Gong Show and the Democrats should cut a phase-out deal that gives the president what until a couple months ago was supposed to be all that he wanted (i.e., 2 percent of payroll)?
Whoever these Fainthearted Dems might be, please pass a law barring them from negotiating the price of their next automobile, right? I mean, maybe they think Enron stock is undervalued too and primed for a comeback.
As the Post describes the terms of a potential deal: "[M]ost of these compromises would involve Bush significantly scaling back his proposals for restructuring the popular retirement program. In exchange, he could still claim an incremental victory on what he has described as his core principles."
Of course, the real deal maker -- from what I can discern -- remains Sen. Joe Lieberman of Connectictu, the new Dean of the Senate's Fainthearted Faction. Sen. Carper comes in a close second. But I think Lieberman is the one who wants it most.
Along these lines, at the end of the week I heard from a number of TPM Readers who contacted Sen. Lieberman and were told in no uncertain terms that he does not support private accounts carved out of Social Security. All I can tell you is, listen carefully to the precise language his folks use because faint hearts make for meticulous wordsmiths. Or perhaps better, ask them this: Will Sen. Lieberman rule out a deal in which the payroll tax cap is raised and private accounts are funded only with that new payroll tax money? I doubt you'll get such a definitive answer.
--Josh Marshall
Rep. Capito (R) of West Virginia feels the heat in the district on Social Security, says she'll urge fellow Republicans to "be really cautious about what we do."
--Josh Marshall
Rep. Tom Davis (R) of Virginia -- he of the dry powder -- apparently got an earful at his townhall meeting in Fairfax today.
We've also been reviewing Davis's statements over the past few months to see whether or not he fits the current criteria for membership in the Conscience Caucus. A couple months ago someone who was going to such lengths to keep his distance from the president's phase-out plan would have gotten membership in a heartbeat. But for the moment we're still reviewing the record.
--Josh Marshall
There is a short piece in the Times tomorrow noting that GOP astroturfer Charlie Jarvis plans to keep up his goonish campaign of disinformation against AARP and any and all who try to stand in the way of the president's Social Security phase-out plan. But let me take the opportunity to follow up on the O'Neill Marketing Company (OMC), the direct mail services provider that used to work out of the same offices as USANext and was at one point partly owned by them.
We've been able to find out a bit more about their relationship with Jarvis's operation. And though they apparently leased space from USANext until as recently as late last year, the financial ties between the OMC and USANext ended in 2002. In fact, from what I understand, it was Jarvis's arrival at USANext, and the new direction in which he took the organization, that prompted the folks at OMC to sever those ties.
Now, the ins-and-outs of the business history of this direct-mail company in Northern Virginia certainly aren't at the top of most people's concerns. But Charlie Jarvis is out there playing some pretty nasty hardball against anyone opposing phase-out. And plenty of folks on the other side are happy to oblige him by giving him the same in return. But, from the best I can tell, these folks at O'Neill are pretty much just caught in the crossfire.
Whatever slime Jarvis is peddling -- and he's peddling plenty -- isn't coming from them.
--Josh Marshall
