Dear Congressman Ford,
Look, yes, I know this may seem like a sort of public way of communicating. But my tech guy has set this up so only your home computer can access this post. No one else can see it. It's set to your IP address. (I guess you've got a static IP address on your home hook-up?)
In any case, the consensus of the pols in your home state is that your angle on the Social Security privatization stuff is that you want to set yourself up for a Senate run in 2006 for Frist's seat. And this'll give you bipartisan cross-over cred with rural and conservative voters in the state that you need.
But look, if you're going to be cynical, at least do it effectively, right? This may have been a pretty bad decade-and-a-half for the Dems in Tennessee. But it isn't because Democrats support Social Security, believe me. Gay Marriage? Abortion? Guns? National Defense? Sure, probably all of them. But not excessive fealty to Social Security.
Think about it. Did Bush even get into Social Security during the campaign? Of course, not. Even Lieberman's gotten off that train. And half the people in Connecticut work on Wall Street. What do you got compared to that? Right, I didn't think so.
If you're trying to angle your way into the Senate and set yourself apart from the national Democrats, do it on abortion or the gay rights stuff. Not that I'm recommending it. But if you're going to be cynical at least do it with an issue that's going to do you some good.
If you want to pull up a seat with the real power players, being cynical ain't enough. You've gotta be cynical and smart.
I was chatting with a friend of yours today. And he says he figures you're probably just not with it enough to realize that this isn't much of a way to appeal to Democrats-turned-Republicans in your state. But, dude, I've got your back. He may not be enough of a friend to tell you. But I am, whatever I may be saying about you in the public posts.
Like I said, gay marriage? Iraq? Even maybe the Oil-for-Food angle? (Coleman's too big a doofus ever to carry that ball anywhere.) Those are some issues with some mileage in them. And like I said, if you're going to be cynical, get some mileage out of it, right?
Picture this placard ...
Harold Ford: Man Enough to Know That a Man Shouldn't Marry a Man.
Right? Right? That's great stuff.
Or maybe, this ...
Harold Ford: Putting the 'Christ' back into Christmas.
Anyway, we can come up with various angles. But you get the idea. We'll talk soon. And lemme know if you have any ideas for the database.
Best,
--Josh Marshall
From the Christmas day Post ...
The U.S. military invaded Iraq without a formal plan for occupying and stabilizing the country and this high-level failure continues to undercut what has been a "mediocre" Army effort there, an Army historian and strategist has concluded."There was no Phase IV plan" for occupying Iraq after the combat phase, writes Maj. Isaiah Wilson III, who served as an official historian of the campaign and later as a war planner in Iraq. While a variety of government offices had considered the possible situations that would follow a U.S. victory, Wilson writes, no one produced an actual document laying out a strategy to consolidate the victory after major combat operations ended.
...
As a result of the failure to produce a plan, Wilson asserts, the U.S. military lost the dominant position in Iraq in the summer of 2003 and has been scrambling to recover ever since. "In the two to three months of ambiguous transition, U.S. forces slowly lost the momentum and the initiative . . . gained over an off-balanced enemy," he writes. "The United States, its Army and its coalition of the willing have been playing catch-up ever since."
Some things are just unforgivable. <$NoAd$>And this crew does a lot of them.
--Josh Marshall
Tennesseans chime in on the Dean of the Fainthearted Faction ...
Josh,Democrats have one chance, and one chance only, of taking Frist's seat in '06 (I'm sure you know Frist is not running again.) Harold Ford. You are advocating a very tough trade off for folks like me; I am very likely a Ford voter regardless of what he does on S.S.; so far, the other possible Democrat contenders would not get my vote. He is the only Democrat with any substantial support in heavily Republican East Tennessee, where I live, and for a Democrat to win state wide, they have to run well in East Tennessee. (Though not necessarily carry it.) This is how Phil Bredesen managed to get elected Governor. If Democrats cut Ford, they will make a lot of Republicans very, very happy.
DL
TennesseeJosh,
From what I've read, he's definitely exploring a run for Bill Frist's Senate seat in 2006, and that's going to be a high-profile race. No doubt he's trying to gain support among conservative Tennesseans on this issue, especially East Tennesseans, and trying to preempt one of his opponents - probably the tired old Van Hilleary - likely charges that he's for 'doing nothing about the bankrupt SS program'. And by attaching himself to Lindsey Graham, he's going to pound it in that he's bipartisan and works very well even with very conservative Republicans like Graham and DeMint (as opposed to the partisan Van Hilleary and Frist).
I think all of this is his well-thought out strategy of placing himself in alliances that will ultimately go nowhere (Bush's plan, though more draconian, is going to be the only choice), but he can point out his public stance with conservatives as proof he plays well with others (repuglicans, especially).
I personally think Ford would be a disaster as a Democratic candidate for
Senate. He has no traction in East TN *at all*.... Problem is, no one except
Gov. Bredesen on the Dem side has any traction *at all.*MC
Tennessee
Let me chime in here with at least my <$Ad$>sense of what this is about.
The point here is very much not to be writing people out of the party. The point is to corral them in on the basis of an issue of fundamental importance to Americans all across the country -- let's call it a little coercive encouragement or organizational tough love. With any of these folks in the Fainthearted Faction, if they come around to the right position, then the past is the past. There's no sense in coming up with purity tests over what this or that person said or thought in the past so long as they're on the right side now. The point of putting these guys into the Fainthearted Faction is to get them out of the Fainthearted Faction.
Like the first reader I'd hate to see Harold Ford go down over this. But I don't think that has to happen and I don't even think it's going to happen. It's a risk. But I think it's a small one and one that, if we run it, we will most likely end up with our Harold Fords and a party united around defending Social Security.
If he turns out to be that craven, Democrats are better off without him.
Following a ship to the bottom of the sea on principle is seldom a wise choice. But the thing here is not only the fundamental importance of Social Security, but the fact that this fight is quite winnable and that if the Democrats win it, the winning of it will generate dividends in cohesion, morale and respect in the minds of the American people that transcend this individual policy issue.
See, we like dividends too.
--Josh Marshall
From a piece I wrote about one of the President's 2001 pro-Social Security phase out astroturf groups, the Coalition for American Financial Security, or CAFS ...
"The most striking thing about CAFS is not that it is made up of interested parties from the financial-services industry, nor that it enjoys close connections to the White House. Rather, it is the extent to which the organization has emanated from a single corporation whose interest in privatization is driven as much by ideological zeal as by the expectation of profit.
The Frank Russell Company--creator of the Russell 2000 small-cap stock index--is known within the financial-services industry for spearheading privately funded initiatives aimed at spreading laissez-faire principles of economic organization in former socialist or mixed economies around the world. This has often meant setting up organizations that advocate the privatization of social-insurance programs: exactly what CAFS is now designed to do in the United States. Russell's efforts to jump-start the privatization debate in this country began two years ago when Russell CEO Michael Phillips started the company's Social Security reform initiative and assigned Don Ezra to coordinate it.
Ezra is a global avatar of privatization and laissez-faire. A soft-spoken British national, he has worked for Frank Russell in Canada, the United States, and the United Kingdom. From Russell's European headquarters in London, he was involved in similar efforts to privatize social insurance in Europe. While in the United Kingdom, he stirred controversy with a report arguing that British pension-fund management gave too little say to investment professionals and that the managers of U.K. pension funds were overly burdened by such factors as the need for consensus and "too much caution" in choosing investments."
That's a bit from a July 2001 article I wrote on the Social Security privatization biz.
--Josh Marshall
Is Harold Ford the Dean of the Fainthearted Faction? Could be. When last we left the Tennessee up-and-comer he was saying nice things about Sen. Lindsey Graham's (R-SC) private accounts bill. But little did we know that last year he came awfully close to co-sponsoring the private accounts bill of South Carolina Congressman Jim DeMint.
Here's a Bob Novak column cheering him on. Here's his statement of support for the DeMint plan on the Cato Institute 'Project on Social Security Choice' website. And here's a piece from South Carolina's The State on how he just couldn't quite get himself to sign on the dotted line at the last minute because even though he loved the plan he and DeMint couldn't decide how to pay for it.
Now, it just so happens that Congressman DeMint just got elected to the Senate. So that means that in the new Congress Ford will have the whole South Carolina Senate delegation covered in as much as that he's given the thumbs up to co-sponsoring partial phase-out bills with both of the state's senators.
In any case, a few other points. First, though he is sponsoring a partial Social Security phase-out plan, I will at least give Sen. Graham credit for a level of responsibilty on how to pay for it. He has publicly scolded President Bush's willingness to borrow one or two trillion dollars to finance his Social Security phase-out plan. And he himself has suggested eliminating the caps on payroll taxes (thus incresing the taxes on upper-income workers) to finance the transition.
At the end of the day, he still wants to partially phase-out Social Security and replace it with private accounts. And partial phase-out will lead to total phase-out. But there is some virtue I think in noting cases in which you have fundamental political and philosophical disagreements with someone and yet you can see that they are advocating what you see as bad policies with some measure of honesty and responsibility, in contrast to the likes of President Bush who is doing so with the characteristic recklessness and deception. Graham was also a standout on Abu Ghraib. So, anyway, I just wanted to note these points.
And, though I've noted this several times, I want one more time to make this point about the Fainthearted Faction, and particularly those who got grandfathered in because of their opposition to the Filner Amendment (see this earlier post if you want to know what the hell I'm talking about), because I keep hearing from readers for whom the point doesn't seem clear.
Most of the folks who are now in the Faction are there because of their opposition to the Filner Amendment. That just means that they're the first people to look at (for the reasons described in this post) if we're trying to figure out which congressional Democrats seem most likely to sign on with Bush's plan.
As we noted earlier today, three congressmen who got grandfathered into the Faction because of their opposition to the Filner Amendment have made recent statements which state fairly clear opposition to the Bush plan. Congressmen Boyd and Smith are confirmed members of the Faction for recent actions or statements. And now Harold Ford is not only in the Faction but has actually become the Dean because of his rather lengthy history of openness to phasing out Social Security.
I know this all gets complicated. But bear with me since Social Security really is an important program.
Now, in addition to being the Dean of the Fainthearted Faction, another thing to note about Rep. Ford is that he's a man with big plans --- statewide office, national office, the sky's the limit. He ran against Nancy Pelosi two years ago to be the head of the Democratic caucus when he was only in his third term and thirty-two years old, for crying out loud.
So what I'm wondering is what big funders and groups of Democrats are going to go to Ford and tell him that if he ever wants to get out of his Memphis House district just who does he think it's going to be who's going to fund and staff out his campaign?
And what about those Republicans who might not quite be ready to sign on to President Bush's plan to phase out Social Security? You know, the Conscience Caucus. Florida's Mark Foley told the AP a few days ago that out of the 232 member GOP caucus in the 109th Congress, between 125 to 150 of them might need "a lot of hand-holding" to get them to sign off on ending, or ... okay, okay, partially ending Social Security. And Illinois' Ray LaHood seemed to be thinking along the same lines.
So the Conscience Caucus may include a good seventy, eighty, even a hundred members. And they, after all, are the real issue.
The reason it's so critical to get every Democrat lined up with the right position in favor of Social Security is not simply or even principally because of the significance of their individual votes. After all, if the president can keep all his troops together they don't need any Democratic votes. The point is to raise the stakes, to make the moral responsibility as stark and as clear as possible.
If President Bush is intent on destroying Social Security and replacing it with a private accounts system, let him do it with Republican votes only. Republicans in marginal districts will be far less likely to sign on to his plan if it's an exclusively Republican enterprise, if there are no Democrats along for the ride to muddle the picture and provide illusory bipartisan cover.
--Josh Marshall
And one more thing. Not only is Rep. Harold Ford now a self-declared member of the Fainthearted Faction, but he told that panel discussion that he believes the Faction contains between between 50 and 60 members, or roughly a quarter of the Democratic caucus.
We hear very different. But we'll see.
Coming Soon: Who's in the Senate's Fainthearted Faction?
--Josh Marshall
Who will rid me of this meddlesome priest?
Bush to Bill about Rummy?
Perhaps Karl to Bill. Who knows? But you get the idea.
--Josh Marshall
An update on the Democrats' 'Fainthearted Faction', those who voted against the Filner Amendment in 2001, which was widely seen as a proxy vote for support or opposition to replacing Social Security with private investment accounts.
A couple weeks ago, Rep. Tom Allen of Maine released a statement in which he said, inter alia, that "The proposed Social Security privatization will sink the nation further into the ocean of red ink that has already resulted from this President’s failed budget and tax policies. No amount of media ‘spin’ can disguise the brutal fiscal reality that this plan is a double-edged sword that wreaks deficit havoc on one side and Social Security chaos on the other."
Congressman Adam Schiff of California has released a statement in which he says: "The privatization of Social Security would be detrimental to the guarantee of a secure future for all of our seniors and our national economy. I have serious reservations about tying the Social Security funds into the stock market. Such accounts would expose participants to excessive market risk for an income source that has become so essential to many of the nation's elderly. Our nation has a three-tiered retirement system -- consisting of Social Security, private pensions, and personal investments. While we may want to undertake some "risk" in the latter two tiers, Social Security -- as the tier that provides a basic floor of protection -- should be more stable. It is true that steps need to be taken to strengthen the Social Security Trust Fund. First and foremost, we must continue to pay down the national debt to ensure that that the Trust Fund remains intact. However, the Administration's privatization proposal is estimated to require borrowing at least $1 trillion, which would be a fiscally irresponsible decision. Instead, to protect the Trust Fund, we must prohibit the transfer of any funds to cover future tax cuts or new spending programs."
Staffers for congressman Dennis Moore of Kansas have been telling TPM constituent-readers who've called his office in no uncertain terms that he opposes replacing all or part of Social Security with private accounts and we received a letter from him today in which he writes that "In the 109th Congress, we will attempt to address the challenges facing Social Security, but I cannot stress enough the importance of strengthening the current system instead of dismantling it. As such, I am opposed to any efforts to privatize the current Social Security system." He also notes his support for taking Social Security "off-budget" thus preventing the use of the Social Security surpluses to mask general revenue deficits. Finally, he says -- in reference to the Filner Amendment -- that "while I applaud the Commission for helping to initiate a debate on how best to improve the Social Security system, let me assure you that I will continue to oppose any plan that would jeopardize the benefits of hardworking Americans through investment in individual accounts."
Finally, Congressman Adam Smith of Washington, from what we can glean from TPM constituent-readers who've contacted his office and this article he wrote on December 17th, is very much keeping his options open on private accounts.
So, that all means that we're striking Reps. Allen, Moore and Schiff from the Fainthearted Faction and leaving Congressman Smith definitely in.
That takes the number of members of the Fainthearted Faction down to ten. But we also have a new member joinging the Faction, Congressman Harold Ford of Tennessee, who brings the number back to eleven. We're adding Rep. Ford to the list because of an exchange a reader sent us between Rep. Ford and Mort Kondracke at a panel meeting on capitol hill last March sponsored by Centrists.Org, The Concord Coalition, The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget at the New America Foundation, and The Alliance for Worker Retirement Security.
When Kondracke asked Ford whether he could support Sen. Lindsey Graham's private accounts bill (Graham was the other member of Congress on the panel), Ford responded ...
Yes, I would, provided we could pay for the transition costs without running up bigger deficits. I’m not an expert on all the details, but I think his bill has good anti-poverty protections, and matching funds for lower-income workers. The personal accounts are progressive, which is good. And in the long run, it keeps Social Security costs down to about where they are now, which we can afford. In this budget environment, however, it will be very hard to pay for the transition costs of the accounts.MORT KONDRACKE. Is there a caucus for entitlement reform among Democrats in the House? Realistically, how many House Democrats do you think would be interested in discussing Social Security reform and personal accounts?
REPRESENTATIVE FORD. I think there is a group who would be willing to work constructively. Maybe 50 or 60 members. Certainly, Charlie Stenholm has been an extraordinary leader on this. Charlie has been explaining this issue to voters for many years, and he is a very influential leader on budgets and entitlements.
So Congressman Ford enters the Faction. And that leaves us with the following updated list for the Fainthearted Faction ...
Tom Allen
Marion Berry
Allen Boyd
Robert "Bud" Cramer
Harold Ford
Ron Kind
Dennis Moore
James Moran
Collin Peterson
Adam Schiff
Ike Skelton
Adam Smith
John Tanner
Gene Taylor
More soon on our Social Security 'where do they stand' database.
[ed.note: Thanks to TPM reader JH for the tip on Rep. Ford. The linked post contains more details on Ford.]
--Josh Marshall
This article "special to The Washington Post" discusses a supposed rise in the incidence of vandalism of Nativity scenes and other Christmas displays and ponders whether it is the result of an alleged rise in "Christian-bashing."
As nearly as I can tell, however, the only evidence of a rise noted in the piece comes from William Donohue, an extremist and a gamer, who is the president of the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights, and who we last saw complaining that "Hollywood is controlled by secular Jews who hate Christianity in general and Catholicism in particular."
--Josh Marshall
Giuliani-Kerik LLC to be renamed Giuliani Security & Safety. Kerik "to take some time off to focus on my family."
--Josh Marshall
In this post Kevin Drum wades into the online debate about why new poll numbers out yesterday show public approval of the Iraq war down substantial since election day. He notes that fellow blogger David Adesnik reacted in puzzlement to these new numbers ...
I have to admit I'm somewhat puzzled by the numbers. Why were the American public so much more confident [in] Bush on election day? The media have generally presented the post-election battle in Fallujah as victory for our side....Steve Sturm's take on all of this is that America supported the first Iraq war (to get rid of Saddam's WMDs) but not the second (to promote democracy in Iraq).
Kevin's answer, which I think is certainly correct, <$Ad$>is that there's no real mystery. With a few bumps and wiggles along the way, public support both the conduct of the war and the very idea of going to war has basically been heading south from the day the war ended. "Conservatives seem to think that Americans like wars.," writes Kevin, "They don't. They like winning wars. As it becomes ever clearer that Bush doesn't have a winning strategy in Iraq, support continues to drop. It's pretty easy to understand."
But I have another explanation, one that I think is complementary to Kevin's, but adds something to it.
During the election, I always thought that the dynamics of the campaign were providing what we might call an artificial floor for support for the war -- both at the level of its management and the whole idea of going to war in the first place.
Here's what I mean -- it comes down to an issue of cognitive dissonance.
The dead-even political polarization of America remains the defining fact of our politics. Close to 50% of Americans were dead set on voting for President Bush almost no matter what. Or they were dead set on voting against John Kerry. For our purposes, it's the same difference.
I think that many Bush supporters simply couldn't take stock of the full measure of the screw-up in Iraq during the election because doing so would have conflicted their support for President Bush. Iraq and the war on terror so defined this election that support for the war and the president who led us into it simply couldn't be pried apart.
Perhaps it wasn't so internalized. During the slugfest of the campaign supporting Bush just meant supporting the war and this is what people told pollsters when they were asked, because one question was almost a proxy for the other.
You can even do a thought experiment by imagining how many conservatives during election season would have been so staunch in their support for the war if it were being fought under a President Gore or a President Clinton. The question all but answers itself.
In any case, I think what has happened is that the end of the campaign season has departisanized the war -- at least to a measurable extent -- and folks who were emotionally and intellectually committed to reelecting the president (just as there were people on the other side with similar commitments) are now freer to see the situation in Iraq a bit more on its own terms.
--Josh Marshall
An update on yesterday's discussion of the ABC/WaPo poll on Social Security -- and this one's a pretty big deal.
Last night I wrote that the poll showed that 53% of respondents favored private accounts but that number dropped to 46% (with 47% opposed) when costs of up to $2 trillion were added to the equation.
But it seems that's incorrect and the real finding was far more favorable.
I went back and looked at what appears to be a revised version of the Post story I referenced yesterday to see exactly what they said. But even the revised version states: "The president also has at least general support from 53 percent of the public for the concept of letting people control some of their contributions to invest in the market ... Support dropped to an even split when people were told that the cost of the transition to a new program could reach $2 trillion over time ..."
The original version of the article, I believe, provided the specific numbers, but this reference to an "even split" is clearly a reference to the numbers falling to 46% for, 47% against. Or at least I can't see any other way of interpreting it.
All I can figure is that the authors of the piece weren't clear on what the numbers actually said. (I don't say that lightly; they're both solid reporters. But I don't see any other way to interpret how they characterize the data.) This is clear in ABC's compilation of the data; and it's noted in their write-up of the poll as well. Indeed, if you look at the section of the Post's complete poll data which references this question, you'll see quite clearly that this question was "asked [only] of those who support a stock market option."
That means that it's not 46% of respondents who still support private accounts but only 46% of the originally-private-account-supporting 53%. Or, in other words, just under 25% of respondents support Bush's plan once they know the costs and an overwhelming 69% oppose it.
That's a pretty big difference.
[ed. note: A special thanks to readers JD and SC for flagging my attention to this point.]
--Josh Marshall
Gen. Richard Myers at today's Pentagon briefing: "This attack [in Mosul], of course, is the responsibility of insurgents, the same insurgents who attacked on 9/11, the same type of insurgents who attacked in Beirut, the same insurgents who -- type of insurgents who attacked the Cole, Khobar Towers, and the list goes on."
--Josh Marshall
Kerik resigns from Giuliani partners.
Did Rudy make him an offer he couldn't refuse?
--Josh Marshall
Just a quick update on the Dems' Fainthearted Faction mentioned below.
At least a couple of folks on this list are now making what appear to be unequivocal statements against phasing out Social Security. And we'll be bringing you those updates later today. But let's review what the list is.
These are thirteen Democratic congressmen who, when given a chance three years ago to make a clear vote in favor of preserving Social Security rather than phasing it out with a private accounts sytem, voted no.
Perhaps they didn't give the issue enough thought then; maybe they wanted to keep an open mind and not prejudge the issue; perhaps the significance of the vote wasn't clear; maybe they've changed their position since then. Who knows? And, to a degree, who cares?
The question is where they stand now.
The larger point here is that the defenders of Social Security need to have all Democrats standing united against phasing out Social Security. And these are thirteen reps who at least seemed open to the idea in the past. The point is not to bash them but to find out where they stand today.
--Josh Marshall
I want you to meet some friends of ours.
We call them the Fainthearted-Faction. They're the thirteen Democrats who look most likely to go wobbly when President Bush comes a'courting, asking for votes to phase out Social Security.
But first a bit of history.
I was recently reminded that back in 2001 there was something called the Filner Amendment. Without getting too bogged down in the details, this was a proxy vote on Social Security 'privatization'. Specifically, it aimed to "prohibit funds for the purpose of implementing the final report" of the President's Social Security Commission (i.e., privatization).
It turned out pretty much a party line vote. But not entirely.
Twenty Democrats voted against it.
The good news -- if of, shall we say, a rather painful sort and the kind one can only survive so much of -- is that six of those representatives aren't in the 109th congress -- for reasons ranging from defeat to retirement to felony conviction. And one has become a Republican -- Ralph Hall of Texas. But that still leaves 13 members who are already on the slippery slope to Boydville.
They are ...
Dennis Moore
Tom Allen
Marion Berry
Allen Boyd
Robert "Bud" Cramer
Ron Kind
James Moran
Collin Peterson
Adam Schiff
Adam Smith
Ike Skelton
John Tanner
Gene Taylor
I might note that one of those no longer in the congress is Tim Roemer, member of the 9/11 commission, and now an aspirant to head the DNC.
I'm a fan of Roemer's, though not necessarily a supporter of his for the DNC post. But I imagine he's going to have to really 'refine' his stance on this issue if he wants to have even the slightest chance of winning that contest.
More generally, opposition to phasing out Social Security, per se, is not the only grounds to persuade members of the Fainthearted-Faction to come to their senses on this issue. There's also the rather powerful argument of fiscal sanity. Putting the nation another two trillion dollars into debt over the next decade when we're already laboring under very large structural deficits is more than a little foolish. And most members of the Faction are fiscally conservative. So that's a promising appeal.
Finally, we've decided to put our own Social Security 'where do they stand' database together at TPM. And we're going to be getting help from some others who've already started doing this work separately from us. But we'll need volunteers to help collect and organize the data. Are you interested in getting involved? Let us know.
--Josh Marshall
Steve Rosenthal profiled today by John Harwood in the Wall Street Journal. Rosenthal, Harwood writes, "suggests Democrats place the five closest states from the previous general election (Iowa, New Hampshire, Ohio, New Mexico, and Wisconsin) first in the 2008 primary calendar to help tune up for fall battles."
That sounds like a damn good idea to me.
--Josh Marshall
Wow! From the AP: "The head of the state Democratic Party said late Tuesday that recount results from King County give Democrat Christine Gregoire an eight-vote victory in the closest governor’s race in state history."
--Josh Marshall
In its coverage of its new poll, the Washington Post leads with the finding that a bare majority (53%) supports including a private accounts option with Social Security. But the totality of this poll is, I would say, fairly encouraging. When a price tag is put to the plan, support drops down to 46%, with 47% opposed. Further down we find that the number of people who think there is a "crisis" in the Social Security system is a mere 25%, down from 34% six years ago.
And there's one final tidbit in there which may be more encouraging to those who want to keep the Social Security program than it seems on the surface. While either 53% or 46% support including a private accounts option, 62% say they would not take the private account option themselves.
"Of those who said they would make such investments," continues the Post, "only 7 percent said they would put "all" their contributions into the market, while 57 percent said 'some' and 23 percent answered 'just a little.'"
Here's why that's a big deal.
A clear majority wants real Social Security for themselves, even if many people want the accounts option for others. Only 37% would opt for the accounts option. And even most of them don't seem altogether enthusiastic about it -- as evidenced by their not wanting to invest as much as they might in the option.
But the thing is, if private accounts are a bad idea, they're a really, really bad idea for people who don't want to use them. Pulling money out of Social Security to fund private accounts will sharply accelerate the stresses already on the system -- a system a clear majority of voters appears to want to enjoy when they retire.
This poll is a road map for supporters of Social Security on how to frame their arguments.
--Josh Marshall
Friggin' unbelievable ...
You'll note here on the HHS website is a list of the "Tentative roster" of the "Advisory Panel on Medicare Education."
And down there amongst the HMO CEOs, health care experts and physicians is noted health care economist and Medicare policy expert Frank I. Luntz.
Yeah, that Frank Luntz.
Mayberry Machiavellis, indeed!
--Josh Marshall
"Long range changes need to be made" to Social Security to insure benefits can be paid. Did you know that? And with the baby boom generation about to double the number of seniors "changes will need to be made to Social Security" to keep the program solvent. And "most experts agree the sooner those changes are made the less they are going to cost." Did you know that? Or how about the fact that "some people mistakenly think there’s a special account" with their funds in it?
Just some of helpful facts you can learn about Social Security when you listen to the "on hold" recording while waiting to speak with someone at the Social Security administration.
--Josh Marshall
Lots of new news on the Franklin-AIPAC espionage story from the JTA -- new details involving CBS reporter Adam Ciralsky, and how Franklin was flipped by the FBI and helped "set up a sting against AIPAC" as well as "initiating contact with some neoconservative defense experts, several of them Jewish, who supported Ahmad Chalabi ... [and] Chalabi’s political adviser," Francis Brooke.
This piece is lengthy, detailed and a must-read.
--Josh Marshall
It's good to be da king ...
(Sam Rosenfeld on today's press conference)
The president got a tad petulant when fielding questions on Social Security. His emphatic response to any and all queries about his position on the subject was an indignant, righteous refusal to answer: “You’re not going to get me to negotiate with myself,” he repeatedly told the perplexed reporters. “I know what you’re trying to get me to do. You’re trying to get me to answer ‘Why this,’ ‘why that,’ to take positions -- don’t bother to ask me.” Rather than merely dodge the questions, Bush seemed intent on staking out an explicit, principled position in favor of dodging the question. There may have been a method to this madness above and beyond Bush’s stated explanation that “Congress writes legislation” <$NoAd$> and therefore he, as the president, shouldn’t be setting specific guidelines for a Social Security reform proposal. The president isn’t usually a big separation-of-powers, checks-and-balances kind of guy.
[Note to White House: Might be time to add a fifth stock answer.]
--Josh Marshall
A reader writes in the following ...
re: Allen Boyd, I think it's a mistake to first assume that we can't convince him on the merits of the issue, rather than trying to intimidate him into submission.
I don't assume that. In fact, I would say that it would be foolish for anyone to commit themselves to voting Boyd out of office or punishing him in any way at all. I would say simply that anyone in Boyd's district who believes in Social Security should commit themselves to vote only for candidates who vote to keep Social Security.
Boyd has plenty of time to decide whether or not he qualifies.
I think Boyd's fellow Democrats have a very strong case to make to him on Social Security, both on the substance and the politics. If the issue were abortion or gay rights or guns, it would be foolish to think that Boyd is going to adopt the positions of Democrats from the coasts, given that he comes from a district that is very culturally red. But I simply don't buy the idea -- frankly, I can't imagine that anyone does -- that Social Security is a program that culturally conservative rural voters just won't abide.
As Ed Kilgore has been saying in a slightly different context, Democrats need to put much more focus as a party on persuasion. But as any sensible hawk knows, diplomacy is seldom truly effective without a credible threat of force backing it up. And that's all I'm recommending.
--Josh Marshall
Nick Confessore has an important post here about why losing a few House seats by punishing reps. who agree to phase out Social Security wouldn't be the end of the world. Frankly, I doubt anyone will lose their seats. I think the process will change their minds before it comes to that. But if a few fall, so be it. The Democrats are in the minority. (Washington Dems should take a moment to absorb that.) Gaining or losing a few seats won't change much either way. What will change things is recasting the issue map in a way that can securely propel the Dems back into the majority. Read Nick's piece.
--Josh Marshall
Following up on yesterday's call for some progressive organization to begin an online database stating where every representative and senator stands on Social Security, a short update.
It turns out that one individual had already taken the initiative on Saturday to set up a blog to compile the data. And I've already heard from a few TPM readers with technical expertise in doing this sort of thing eager to volunteer their time. So far, though, none of the progressive groups that come readily to mind seem interested.
Or, at least, I haven't heard anything about it if they are.
That's too bad. Because without aggressive, outside-the-box thinking and action, this will all go very badly. The same-old-same-old mix of press conferences and reports and 'coalitions' won't amount to anything.
And there's another thing to consider as well.
In politics as in life, victory or success is seldom entirely within our control. As we noted a few days ago, the Democrats can't win this legislatively. They don't have the votes. The GOP has the White House and solid majorities in both chambers. If they can hold their troops together, they can write the bill, pass it, and sign it into law before anyone gets another chance at the ballot box. But, as important as winning is in this case (and I'm a good deal more optimistic than many of my friends and colleagues seem to be), winning isn't everything.
If Democrats have to lose this, they must be sure to lose well.
Do they spin and shuffle and whine and sputter on about how bad the whole thing is? Or do they make this into a clear choice -- where Democrats support Social Security for a clear set of reasons rooted in values and policy, and Republicans oppose it?
If the lies about the program's unviability are volubly refuted, the party division made clear, and the reasons why Social Security is good for America are ably argued, then let the chips fall where they may. But if it's all tactics, the outmoded bag of tricks and risk-aversion, playing at the margins and wringing of hands, that will truly be unforgivable.
Late Update: In response to the above, a reader writes in the following: "I think it's possibly all to the good to have independent operatives doing stuff like this: wasn't the use of arms-length surrogates a hallmark of the other side's tactics? Why does everything have to come from Party Central? is that a Democratic value I am missing? Oliver Willis' Brand Democrat effort is similar: he didn't ask permission, only provided minimal guidance and a banner to stand behind."
First, there's a lot here that I agree with. In fact, mostly I agree. These folks won't be moved or forced to change but from the outside. And I hope that continues to happen. At the same time, they have money. They have organizational infrastructure. They have media contacts. As much as I don't want those resources put to ineffectual uses, I also don't want it to go to waste since it's not like there is an excess of resources to go around.
To the extent that energy and insight is bubbling up from folks who haven't been involved before or new blood is coming up in the ranks, great! Frankly, that's the only hope. But I want those folks to start groups, get funding, get office space, get folks who can go on TV. Institutions and infrastructure matter. It's as simple as that.
Let me be as frank as possible. I know a lot of the people we're talking about. I also know very well that almost all of them have devoted a lot more of their lives to fighting for things that I believe in than I have. But I've also seen from the inside how many of the methods and approaches simply don't get the job done -- to put it mildly. But they have strengths and resources that would be foolish to ignore. And why not put them to use?
--Josh Marshall
Administration Social Security lies round-up from yesterday's shows, from the AP (emphasis added) ...
Both Card and Snow, who appeared on "Fox News Sunday," said Social Security is beyond repair as it now stands. They said details of a plan to overhaul it remain to be worked out....
Asked whether Bush's ideas would remove guarantees of Social Security benefits to younger workers, Card said: "Under no one's plan will younger workers receive benefits they've been promised because the Social Security system doesn't have the financial underpinning, the foundation to support the expectations of social security 75 years from now, 50 years from now."
Straight-up lies, disinformation. I was going <$NoAd$> to say just like Iraq, but it's far more brazen since our knowledge in this case is much more certain. See this excellent post by Kevin Drum for more on the reality about Social Security's fiscal health and long-term viability.
Perhaps next there can be some effort to get the media to provide some check on demonstrably false statements made by administration spokespeople.
--Josh Marshall
So many progressive organizations out there with time on their hands. Which one will put together the online database listing where every representative and senator stands on Social Security?
Who supports the program, who wants to phase it out, and who's keeping their cards close to their vest, trying to figure which way the wind will blow?
Only a bit of money and only a bit of staff resources -- and to such good effect. Who will step up to the plate?
On a related note, what about all those Republican members of congress who told voters only two years ago that they were dead-set against 'privatization'?
There was New Hampshire's Jeb Bradley in a debate in 2002: "We have to protect and preserve Social Security for today's recipients and tomorrow's recipients. I'm clearly not in favor of privatizing it, or raising the retirement age or reducing benefits."
Or Jon Porter out in Nevada from 2002. He told voters he was "adamantly opposed" to a private accounts plan. "The more I look and the more I research, the more convinced I am that there should be one focus: to preserve and protect Social Security."
And Chip Pickering down in Mississippi? Here's how the AP summed up his stance in '02: "Pickering recently dropped his support for President Bush's plan to allow Americans to invest part of their Social Security taxes in the stock market, but he said that plan is not privatization. He said he never supported privatization."
It'd be interesting to see if there have been any changes of heart.
--Josh Marshall
Hmmm ... This may be the best entry to the Kerik-Rudy TPM T-shirt contest yet, which TPM reader JP sends our way from Newsweek.
Giuliani said repeatedly that Kerik's role in the firm is very limited, representing "less than 5 percent" of its business. He also said that Kerik's position was largely limited to their joint venture, Giuliani-Kerik. "He's not part of Giuliani Partners," the former mayor said. But at the firm's Web site, Kerik is described as a "Senior Vice President at Giuliani Partners." Giuliani later explained the discrepancy by saying: "Senior vice president of the group is what Bernie was when we started. I think that remains his title, but that's not the way we primarily relate to him. As you know, he does some work for a few of our clients." He added: "We should probably straighten it out and point out where his ownership interest is and primary work is done."
No, it's not exactly 'I hardly knew him'. But it <$NoAd$> sure is, 'That guy, we barely do any business together.' So, I figure, give him time. The (metaphorical) night's still young. And next week, as The Daily News just reported, Kerik's ex-buddy Lawrence Ray will give the New York City Department of Investigations emails that apparently "show Kerik offering a company inside details of a city investigation into its mob links and advance notice of upcoming city contracts." So, like I said, the night is still young.
--Josh Marshall
On Social Security, Democratic unity is an absolute prerequisite for success. And as I wrote a few days ago, Democrats should, probably must, "consider pulling together the major funders of the party, the official committees, the major organizations, basically the entire infrastructure of the Democratic party and making clear to individual members that if they sign on to the president's plan to phase out Social Security, those various institutions and individuals won't fund their campaigns. Not in 2006, not ever. Similar committments can come from voters, activists and volunteers. And free rein to primary challengers. If a couple folks lose their seats because of underfunding or tough primaries, so be it."
And as we noted the next day, there's already a test case: Allen Boyd of Florida.
Boyd was just reelected by a 62% margin in November; but Kerry only pulled 43% in his district. So he wins by comfortable margins. But it's certainly a competitive district. Indeed, after the election, Boyd told the Tallasassee Democrat that he was "for the first time pessimistic" about the Democratic party's future in rural Florida. "In the 2nd District, John Kerry got 43 percent of the vote, and almost half of that came out of Leon and Gadsden counties. We're getting killed in the rural areas, and I'm very concerned about that. We have to change that."
When I see Democrats running in districts that elect Republican presidents, I figure they must have strong reasons for being Democrats, even if their district profile makes their politics different than mine. As I said, though, I don't think Social Security is a compromisable issue -- especially when the campaign against it is built on disinformation and lies. The funny thing is, when you consider the demographic profile of rural America I really don't think phasing out Social Security is a vote-driving issue there. Guns? Abortion? Sure. Ending Social Security? I doubt it.
So, I figure there must be some aspiring Democrats in the 2nd District who might be interested in challenging Boyd in the 2006 primary, though few such contests lead to the challenger actually getting elected to the office in question.
Who are they?
Who runs the local Democratic party committee? What are the big local organizations?
And what about Boyd's funders? Here's the FEC listing of all his PAC or committee funders in the last cycle. The total comes out to just under $900,000. As you'd expect, a lot of the money comes from various business groups that are represented in his district and others with national concerns. But there are a lot of union PACs listed there too. Just scanning the list I see AFL-CIO, AFSCME, the trainmen, firefighters, etc. And plenty of Democratic members of congress. Barney Frank chipped in a grand. Robert Wexler gave the same (and he has big ambitions -- so he's reachable).
This is only one part of the equation. But unity is essential. And achieving it not only means a lot of work on persuasion, but also an assurance that Democrats who vote to end Social Security will be out in the cold.
--Josh Marshall
