Downright <$NoAd$> criminal.

Just out from the Times ...

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

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

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

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

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

Gives a whole new meaning to raiding the Trust Fund.

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

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

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

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

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

Today from CBS News ...

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

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

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

Nice try.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Exactly.

Any Rhode Islanders out there?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Does he still want to be point-man?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

See the rest from the Decatur Daily.

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

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

Please.

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

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

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

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

Yeah, that's my sense too.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Two perspectives <$NoAd$> ...

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

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

"For the first time in six decades, the Social Security battle is one we can win -- and in doing so, we can help transform the political and philosophical landscape of the country."

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

Two perspectives.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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