A very handy resource giving a rundown of each congressional district by numbers of Social Security recipients, percentages of the voting age population, etc.
--Josh Marshall
Just a few nuggets we've awarded points for so far.
Rep. Chris Chocola (R) of Indiana before word came down from party <$NoAd$>headquarters (Nov. 1, 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.'
Rep. Chris Chocola (R) of Indiana after word came down from party headquarters (Sept. 3rd, 2002) ...
I do not support the privatization of Social Security.
Bob Novak before the word came down from party headquarters (Capitol Gang, Sept. 14th, 2002 where we find Mark Shields at mid-Outrage of the Week) ...
Mark Shields: In an Orwellian abuse of the language, conservatives, including even the respected Cato Institute, insist that they're now for Social Security choice, not for dreaded 'privatization'. Yes, and war is peace.Robert D. Novak.
NOVAK: I'm still for privatization.
Bob Novak after the word came down from party headquarters (Crossfire, Oct. 28th, 2002) ...
[Democratic consultant] Steve McMahon: I thought they were accusing the Republicans of wanting to privatize Social Security which, after all, is what Republicans wanted.NOVAK: That's a Democratic term.
Coming soon, Sean Hannity's unfortunate "privatization" problem.
[ed.note: Both Chocola quotations come from the South Bend Tribune in articles on the dates noted. TPM reader AG gets 10 points for bagging Rep. Chocola; JM gets 8 for Novak.]
--Josh Marshall
Stand by Sen. Arlen Specter in his moment of adversity!
Club for Growth attacks Specter for joining the Conscience Caucus.
--Josh Marshall
Hmmm. That should be fun. On Meet the Press this weekend talking about Social Security Tim Russert has on House Ways and Means Chairman Bill Thomas (R) of California and ... Oh, only Bill Thomas, I guess. No one who opposes the president's Social Security phase-out bill.
--Josh Marshall
Rep. Sherry Boehlert (R) of New York gettin' his card punched in the Conscience Caucus.
No article. But Boehlert was on local NPR station WAMC yesterday and he went out of his way to distance himself from the president.
Among other things, said Boehlert: "I’ve never been a gambler … I don’t want to gamble with Social Security trust fund moneys. And so I am very, very skeptical of the so-called plans to privatize. And I think a disservice is being done to a great many Americans by sort of sounding the alarm that everything’s going to hell in a hand basket and we’re going to be broke by 2018. That simply is not so."
Click here to listen to the segment -- advance to 16:30 in the interview.
--Josh Marshall
Katherine Harris too?
She may have stopped a free and <$NoAd$>fair election from taking place in Florida four years ago. But that isn't stopping Rep. Katherine Harris (R) of Florida for signing up for the Conscience Caucus.
From Bloomberg News ...
Republican House members such as Katherine Harris of Florida, Candice Miller of Michigan and Shelley Moore Capito of West Virginia have expressed reservations about Bush's proposal to partially privatize Social Security by establishing personal investment accounts."I'm not sure I've heard a solution I've agreed with,'' said Harris, who as Florida's secretary of state played a central role in the vote-counting dispute in 2000 with her interpretation of the state's election laws. Harris, who was elected to the House in 2002, said last year she opposed creating the private accounts unless future benefits are guaranteed.
...
Harris, who represents a district that contains one of the oldest populations in the U.S., said she was taking seniors' concerns into account. "I have a very close personal working relationship with the AARP,'' said Harris, who voted in favor of Bush proposals 94 percent of the time in 2004.
During the 2004 campaign, Harris responded to an AARP questionnaire issued to Florida candidates by saying she ``opposes creating private individual accounts out of Social Security unless she can be assured that Social Security benefits will not be compromised in the future.''
Is it a stampede?
--Josh Marshall
Rep. Denny Rehberg (R) of Montana in the Conscience Caucus? Who <$NoAd$>knew?
From the November 17th, 2004 Great Falls Tribune ...
From taxes to Social Security to the war in Iraq, Montana's congressional delegates are ready to scrutinize President Bush's second-term agenda - and their take is not always what you'd think.U.S. Rep. Denny Rehberg, Montana's sole House member and a Republican, says he's a long way from feeling comfortable about "privatizing" or allowing "personal accounts" with Social Security funds, as suggested by the president.
"I haven't seen anything I can support yet," he says.
Special thanks to TPM reader CN, who brought this to our attention, and has now been awarded five (5) TPM market points at the discretion of the judges.
--Josh Marshall
As we told you earlier today, even though Karl Rove has been telling Republicans for two years to stop using the word "privatization" and to try to bully reporters out of using the word, like every other Republican until about two years ago, "privatization" was always his word of choice to describe a private-accounts-based Social Security phase-out plan.
At Rove's prompting, President Bush tried to pull this trick when Washington Post reporters asked him about "privatization" during a recent sit-down interview. Unfortunately for the president, Mike Allen had found several instances where President had used the word himself as recently as last year.
Let's be frank about what this is all about. Turning Social Security into a private accounts system has always been called 'privatization'. It was the privatizers' word of choice. That is, until they did some polling in 2002 and found out that using that word made their phase-out plan very unpopular. So, not only did they decide to stop using the word themselves, which is fair enough, they decided to try to stop anyone else from using it to describe their plan.
Here's the passage from the Bush interview ...
The Post: Will you talk to Senate Democrats about your privatization plan?THE PRESIDENT: You mean, the personal savings accounts?
The Post: Yes, exactly. Scott has been --
THE PRESIDENT: We don't want to be editorializing, at least in the questions.
The Post: You used partial privatization yourself last year, sir.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes?
The Post: Yes, three times in one sentence. We had to figure this out, because we're in an argument with the RNC [Republican National Committee] about how we should actually word this. [Post staff writer] Mike Allen, the industrious Mike Allen, found it.
THE PRESIDENT: Allen did what now?
The Post: You used partial privatization.
THE PRESIDENT: I did, personally?
The Post: Right.
THE PRESIDENT: When?
The Post: To describe it.
THE PRESIDENT: When, when was it?
The Post: Mike said it was right around the election.
THE PRESIDENT: Seriously?
The Post: It was right around the election. We'll send it over.
THE PRESIDENT: I'm surprised. Maybe I did. It's amazing what happens when you're tired. Anyway, your question was? I'm sorry for interrupting.
The Post: So have you talked to Senate Democrats about this?
That's really great, isn't it? The Post has to argue with the RNC about whether they're allowed to use the word "privatization" to describe privatization.
Anyway, we're going to see a lot of this funny-business over the next year. And before it's done I figure they'll try to say people can't call them "private accounts" either.
Now, on top of this, we hear a lot of baloney about how there's something hypocritical about being against phasing-out Social Security while still believing in the power of markets and the benefits of investing in the market. So for instance you've got that beau ideal of the mores of 80s Wall Street, Larry Kudlow, claiming that AARP's campaign against phasing-out Social Security is "flat-out hypocritical [because] AARP advertises no fewer than 38 different stock and bond mutual-fund investments to their members ... Yet, when steering their membership away from the Bush Social Security reforms, they never cite the long-run positive stock returns."
So here's what we're going to do. Not only have we come up with a way to finally put to rest the privatizers' orwellian word games, we've come up with a market-based way to do it, just to make clear we like invisible hands just as much as the next guy. No cumbersome command and control system operating out of TPM headquarters -- we'll create the system of incentives and then let individual private enterprise and ingenuity do the rest.
So here goes.
We are creating a bounty for TPM readers who come up with instances where supporters of President Bush's Social Security phase-out plan used the term "privatization" (or other forms of the word -- "privatize", etc.) to describe their policy. In most cases, those examples will be prior to the time when Karl Rove and the RNC decreed the word to be outlawed. But some will be cases like the president's above where folks had a momentary lapse and forgot the new party directive.
To create the proper incentives we'll be assigning point values for different kinds of quotes. TPM readers who amass ten points will win one of our Special Edition Privatize This! TPM T-Shirts.
Now, the first step is our capital formation phase. And that means we need to raise some funds to defray the costs of the shirts and a few other miscellaneous expenses tied to the project. So as of now we're opening a special Market-Based Anti-Privatization Research Fund. Want to do your small part in preventing Karl Rove and his pro-private-accounts minions from pulling the wool over the eyes of the American public? Well click here and toss in a few bucks which will be earmarked for our fund.
Now that we've got our incentives in place. A few notes about the rules.
1. Each quote can only be counted once. The first person who sends it in gets the credit. Each evening we'll be posting a list of the quotes we've already assembled. So that should prevent most cases of people tracking down and taking the time to send in quotes that someone else has already gotten credit for.
2. Each quote has to come with a citation from a bona-fide publication or news source (i.e., not just bogus fly-by-night or blog or something) or some other way to prove its authenticity.
3. Any form or inflection of the word "privatize" is acceptable (except "private accounts"). But the speaker has to be using it in the way we've described above. In other words, finding a quote where Karl Rove says "privatization is a slur against the beauty that is private accounts" ... well that doesn't count, unless specifically noted in the bounty section below.
4. Multiple uses of the "privatization" or any inflections or forms of the word in a single setting, interview or speech only counts as one use.
5. All entries will be judged by TPM Editorial Assistant Avi Zenilman, though in cases of extreme complexity or ambiguity said Zenilman will be allowed to ask for a second opinion from any executive within the TPM organization.
6. Ten points earns one Special Edition Privatize This! TPM T-Shirts. Special Edition Privatize This! TPM Mugs and Sweatshirts may also become available, as circumstances dictate. Point totals will be posted for them too.
7. All entries must be sent to lyingprivatizers@talkingpointsmemo.com. Emails to any other address -- including the regular TPM comments address -- won't be considered.
8. Prior to converting their points into TPM merchandise, contestants will not be deemed to have a property interest in their amassed points.
So those are the rules. Now to the bounties.
1. Wanted: Ten (10) Karl Rove "privatization" quotes. Incentive Structure: Two (2) points each. Three (3) points a piece for quotes after June 2002.
2. Wanted: Ten (10) Rick Santorum "privatization" quotes. Incentive Structure: Two (2) points each. Three (3) points a piece for quotes after August 2002.
3. Wanted: Ten (10) Bill Frist "privatization" quotes. Incentive Structure: Two (2) point each. Three (3) points a piece for quotes after August 2002.
4. Wanted: Ten (10) Jim McCrery "privatization" quotes. Incentive Structure: One (1) point each. Two (2) points a piece for quotes after August 2002.
5. Wanted: Ten (10) John Sununu "privatization" quotes. Incentive Structure: One (1) point each. Two (2) points a piece for quotes after August 2002.
6. Wanted: From any member of the 109th Congress or Senate-confirmed Bush administration appointee, one quote using "privatization" as a word to describe private accounts and a second quote in which the member of Congress or appointee claims that the word "privatization" should not be used to describe private accounts. Incentive Structure: Ten (10) Points. Fifteen (15) points if the member of the Congress holds a leadership position in either the House or the Senate or the appointee is a cabinet secretary.
7. Wanted: From any spokesperson for the Bush White House, any member of the 109th Congress, the RNC, NRCC or NRSC, one quote using "privatization" as a word to describe private accounts and a second quote in which the same spokesperson claims that the word "privatization" should not be used to describe private accounts. Incentive Structure: Seven (7) Points. If the spokesperson is Scott McClellan fifteen (15) points.
8. Wanted: Any case of a talking head, pundit or other public weasel caught in "privatization" double-talk as described in bounties 6 and 7. Incentive Structure: Five (5) points. Extra credit points added based on prominence of double-talker, at the judge's discretion.
Final Rule: Point allocations may be revised upward, but will not be revised downward, as market conditions warrant.
[ed.note: Stay-tuned tomorrow for our new 'Help Rep. Allen Boyd Out of the Jam He's Gotten Himself Into Contest'.]
--Josh Marshall
Lieberman about to leave the Faction?
We're getting a flurry of emails telling us that Sen. Lieberman just defended Social Security in an appearance on The Daily Show with Jon Stewart.
Late Update: We continue to get live-on-the-scene reports from TPM readers across the country, all of whom provide rough approximations of what Lieberman said. Best email subject heading so far: "Joementum out of the Faction?"
Never too Late for Joe Update: TPM reader LS sends us what she describes as a TIVO-based transcript of the key words: "Lieberman: Social Security protection - don't fool around with it. It's probably the best thing the government has done in 100 years, getting senior citizens out of poverty - Stewart: You're not just saying that 'cuz you're getting older? Lieberman: (laughs) Yes that's one reason I'm saying it, but if we want to add some extra savings opportunities for baby boomers and those younger, let's find another way to do it without messing around with Social Security."
--Josh Marshall
Rep. Sherwood Boehlert (R) of New York making a bid to get into the Conscience Caucus ASAP?
--Josh Marshall
By the way, has anyone come up with a good Social Security Democrat to run against Rep. Allen Boyd next year? Certainly Florida's second district has someone willing to mix it up with this dastardly yellowbelly, right?
--Josh Marshall
I'm usually pretty leery of investing a lot in over-clever wordplay. And even this one could be easily overdone. But this suggestion from TPM reader MR caught my ear: "You're on your ownERSHIP SOCIETY."
--Josh Marshall
Most of you have likely already seen this. But in case not, and especially if you have impressionable young children, you'll want to know that radical cleric James Dobson has revealed that cartoon character "SpongeBob" is a homosexual and now involved in propagandizing America's youth on behalf of his alternative lifestyle.
With a name like SpongeBob we thought sure the guy was straight. But in cases like these we're always the last to know.
--Josh Marshall
Marshall Wittman (aka 'Da Moose): "The Moose observes that the eloquence of the President's address was only matched by its disconnectedness to reality ... If he were in touch with the reality of America, he would discover that the country has deep doubts about the wisdom of the war in Iraq ... He is oblivious to the notion that he speaks ever so eloquently about advancing freedom abroad while he imposes economic policies that promote plutocracy at home."
--Josh Marshall
Uh-oh ... Karl Rove says private accounts are "privatization."
What will we tell the children?
[ed.note: Good catch by TPM reader SW.]
--Josh Marshall
The message being sent out from SSA Commissioner Jo Ann Barnhart in response to emails questioning SSA's possible involvement in a pro-phase-out media campaign ...
"Thank you for your inquiry. There has been a lot of misinformation in the media lately and I am glad to have this opportunity to set the record straight. I have never, nor will I ever, ask or direct Social Security employees to promote or advance any specific proposal for Social Security reform. Our job at Social Security is to provide services and benefits and to educate the American public about the programs and finances of Social Security. Again, thank you for your inquiry. We look forward to continuing to serve you."
Meanwhile, in comments to PRWeek, SSA press officer Mark Lassiter says the whole thing was just a big misunderstanding. PRWeek says Lassiter told them that "the plan that's been circulated was never reviewed or approved by the agency. Rather it was posted on the website of one regional office."
Lassiter further says the that the SSA PR plan "hasn't changed in several years."
Finally, the Post's Al Kamen reports on the SSA's 'crisis, crisis, crisis!' phone messages.
Hey, didn't we report that last month?
--Josh Marshall
Sen. Grassley (R) agrees with Chairman Thomas that the president's Social Security phase-out plan may be in trouble.
From the Des Moines Register ...
Grassley, in a conference call with Iowa reporters, did not criticize Thomas' comments, and said that the "difficult political issue" likely will have to be handled by the Senate first rather than the House, and then in a bipartisan fashion.That's in contrast to other controversial ideas that the Republican-controlled Congress has been able to approve in recent years, largely along party lines, such as Medicare prescription drug legislation and tax-cut packages.
"I told the president the other day he has been successful with his agenda because he had a Republican House to push it through," Grassley, an Iowa Republican, said, referring to a recent White House meeting.
In addition, budget rules assisted lawmakers, as well as help from some Senate Democrats, Grassley said.
With Social Security, that is not possible and 60 votes - which would mean some Democratic support - will be needed for any plan to be approved in the Senate, he said.
"Understand it's got to be bipartisan and the president has got to encourage that bipartisanship," Grassley said.
Surely, Stephen Moore's going to have <$NoAd$>something to say about this, right?
--Josh Marshall
I noted this earlier. But I just want to again direct everyone's attention to this website: www.thereisnocrisis.com
Whenever I scan that URL quickly I keep thinking it says something like therhinoceros.com. But, hey, that's just me.
As you can see, it's 'There Is No Crisis' spelled all as one word. And they're doing a great job collecting together all sorts of information -- the best reportage, the worst reportage and plenty of facts about Social Security and the effort to phase it out, all in one place.
--Josh Marshall
George Will says, today, that there is no Social Security crisis, but proffers a new rationale: competition among fund managers.
"Voluntary personal accounts will allow competing fund managers, rather than a government monopoly on income transfers from workers to retirees, to allocate a large pool of money. This will enhance the economic dynamism conducive to an open society."
--Josh Marshall
Even private-accounts-meister Newt Gingrich bagging on the crisis claim? "The combination of higher birth rates and more immigration makes the United States the healthiest of developed nations. This is not a crisis," says the former Speaker, according to Bloomberg.
--Josh Marshall
Rep. Phil English (R) of Pennsylvania says Chairman Thomas "played a very important role in reminding those involved in the debate that there are number of things we can do that will improve the solvency from Social Security, quite apart from the creation of individual accounts. And he also correctly and directly made it clear that individual accounts by themselves will only marginally improve the performance of the system overall."
Private accounts will only "marginally improve" Social Security. Can we bank that quote?
--Josh Marshall
As we noted a bit earlier this evening (or, I guess, this morning -- whatever), we very much doubt Reps. Thomas and McCrery are really as open as they seem to want Democrats to believe to leaving Social Security and its funding base intact and finding their money for private accounts from some other source.
But I was just chatting with TPM reader JK. And as he notes, if you take what the Ways and Means Republicans are saying at face value, it's really something to behold.
Under the new Ownership Society, apparently, Republicans are so dead-set on letting people control their own money that they're going to go out on to the international capital markets and borrow a few trillion dollars so they can give it out to people so they can put it into the stock market. Of course, if individuals are more inclined toward conservative investment strategies they can purchase bonds and thus lend back to the Treasury the money the Treasury just borrowed so they could put it in stocks.
Of course, perhaps we're assuming too much. Perhaps they aren't planning to borrow the money but rather come up with some big new tax that will generate funds that they can then give back to people to invest in the stock market.
--Josh Marshall
We were about to start a Bob Rubin Watch, <$NoAd$>wondering when the Dems chief macro-economic policy mandarin would step up and give us his take on the president's phase-out bill. But our friend Sid Blumenthal gets him on the record to good effect ...
"It's a badly, badly flawed plan," Robert Rubin, the former secretary of the treasury and current Citigroup director, told me. "From a fiscal point of view it's horrendous. It adds to deficits and federal debt in very large numbers until 2060." He calculates that the transition costs of Bush's plan for the first 10 years will be at least $2 trillion, and $4.5 trillion for the second 10 years. The exploding deficit would have an "adverse effect on interest rates, an adverse effect on consumption and housing prices, reduce productivity and growth, and crowd out debt capital to the private sector. Markets could begin to lose confidence in fiscal policy. The soundness of social security will be worse".Rubin adds that the stock market is hardly a sure bet. "You are not making social security more secure by subjecting people's retirement to equity risk. If you look at the Nikkei in Japan you get a sense of what can happen."
No member of the Faction he.
I guess Rubin's just too anti-market.
And remember, you don't need to be in Congress to be in the Fainthearted Faction. Associate memberships are available for other high-profile pols. Just ask Ed Rendell.
--Josh Marshall
Hmmm. Republican Ways and Means Chair Bill Thomas says the Bush plan is a "dead horse". And Democratic backbencher Allen Boyd co-sponsors a private accounts bill with Rep. Jim Kolbe (R) of Arizona. So I guess both parties are equally disunited when it comes to the president's Social Security phase-out bill.
So says Tom Curry at the MSNBC website ...
At this point in the struggle over Social Security, neither Democrats nor Republicans are unified on what changes ought to be made. One Democrat, Rep. Allen Boyd of Florida, has signed on as a co-sponsor of Arizona Republican Rep. Jim Kolbe’s private accounts bill.A Senate Democrat who will play an important role on the Senate Finance Committee, Sen. Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas, has discussed Social Security options with Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., who is trying to put together a bipartisan reform package.
A key House Republican offered some provocative views Wednesday. Ways and Means Committee chairman Rep. Bill Thomas opposed Kennedy’s idea of raising the FICA payroll tax. “Why do you have to fund it (Social Security) in that way? There are other ways to deal with the issue that are smarter.” This seemed to open the door to paying for Social Security from general revenue, an idea some Democrats also have favored.
Now, one might say that as the site keeping the rolls <$Ad$>current for the Fainthearted Faction and the Conscience Caucus, it is rather odd for us to deny that there is any internal disunity among Democrats on this issue.
But we are pressing -- and rightly so, I believe -- what can only be called a rather exacting (some chiefs of staff and press secretaries we've spoken to have used even more colorful or downright unkind phrases) standard for Democrats looking to exit the Fainthearted Faction. But it's certainly worth noting that every current member of the Faction -- with the exception of the poltroonish Boyd -- has spoken ill or skeptically of private accounts and says they're disinclined to support the president.
What they won't do is categorically say they don't support phasing out a portion of Social Security and replacing it with private accounts. They want to leave open a little wiggle room -- or in Sen. Lieberman's case more than that -- to give in to the president's blandishments and tender affections. And this, it seems to Mr. Curry, is the equivalent of a third of the GOP House caucus having panic attacks or breaking out in yet-to-be-diagnosed rashes when the word 'privatization' is mentioned.
I don't want to give the impression that that's the totality of Curry's article. He certainly addresses the Democrats clear opposition to the president's phase-out bill. Read the piece to get a full sense of what he's saying. But I think those three grafs speak for themselves.
In any case, this is one more reason why that band of ignominious wobblers, the Fainthearted Faction, should just be clear on whether they support a Social Security phase-out or not -- so reporters can't create misleading impressions about there being any equivalence between the disunity affecting Dems on this issue and that facing Republicans.
--Josh Marshall
There's an extremely interesting, really a must-read article in Thursday's Post about the evolving Social Security debate.
The essential development is that, at least in the House Republican caucus, Ways and Means Chair Bill Thomas's (R) comments weren't just some off-the-cuff mutterings to be discarded in the next day's papers. They are now affirmed and expanded upon by Rep. Jim McCrery (R) of Louisiana, the newly seated Chairman of the Ways and Means Social Security Subcommittee.
Just what Thomas and McCrery mean though gets even murkier and one could draw very different conclusions about what they are proposing depending on which part of the article you read. The rest of this post may be tough sledding; and I apologize for that. But it's from doing the best I can to disentangle what I suspect are intentionally confusing reports from off the Hill.
The piece begins with what the Post describes as a growing realization among many Hill Republicans that getting money for private accounts out of payroll taxes now destined for Social Security just may not be workable because of the level of opposition that approach has already churned up. McCrery's tack is to get radical tax reform (i.e., a national sales tax or other ideas) back into the mix to open up different possibilities for funding private accounts.
But in the Post's telling it's maddeningly difficult to figure out whether the Ways and Means Republicans are talking about leaving Social Security and its payroll tax base alone and finding other ways to fund private accounts or wbether they are trying to put the entire federal tax code on the table, thus turning the entire debate, and whatever clarity it had, on its head.
Hypothetically, if the whole payroll tax system were scrapped or fundamentally changed, there'd be no clarity on what sort of plan was diverting money from Social Security taxes or not, since the whole funding base of the system would have been done away with and replaced with something else.
Clearly there are Republicans on the Hill who want to put some give back into this rapidly-tightening legislative knot and get their version of tax reform on the table while they're at it.
But wait, there's more.
In the second half of the article, the author chats up Democratic Social Security mavens Sperling, Orszag and Emanuel, who say this new tack from Republicans is a good thing. They then go on to lay out the Democrats position. For them, it's private accounts so long as they're on top of Social Security rather than carved out from Social Security revenues -- the position we've discussed here at TPM many times.
In the Post's description, "Social Security would remain essentially unchanged as a stable, defined retirement benefit, but benefits could be slightly reduced and taxes slightly raised through a variety of mechanisms to keep it solvent as baby boomers retire." And then they say McCrery calls this assessment "right on."
So wait, have McCrery and Thomas just ushered the entire Republican majority into the Conscience Caucus? They're agreeing to leave Social Security intact as a defined benefit, near-universal government program and they'll set up private accounts with new funds from somewhere else?
Somehow I doubt that's what they're agreeing to.
Luckily, there's no reason to think the White House or DeLay's folks would be negotiating in bad faith or anything.
--Josh Marshall
"It is widely recognized that without reform to the current Social Security system, it has little chance of survival through the next several decades."
A snippet from the online push-poll Rep. John Kline (R) of Minnesota is hosting on his House website.
--Josh Marshall
Big Truba fa Duba?
Ways and Means Chairman Bill Thomas (R) of California must be a pretty popular guy today at the White House. You can see the fun time Scott McClellan had today parrying questions from reporters about what it meant that the Chairman called the president's plan a "dead horse."
As a sign of how well it went, you can start with McClellan's out-of-the-box response: "Which proposal are you referring to, John?"
And it pretty much went down hill from there.
Not only did Thomas manage to utter what everyone has been thinking of late: that the president's proposal isn't doing very well and even a modern-day Diogenes would probably be hard pressed to find more than a few Hill Republicans who actually want, in their heart of hearts, the president to keep pushing this issue. In addition to that he managed to float a bunch of new winning ideas that Democrats can now attach to a senior member of the House GOP leadership. Great ideas like upping the retirement age for women since they don't die as soon as men -- an idea whose underlying premise can be rattled off in any number of ridiculous directions, as our friend Ed Kilgore demonstrates to his obvious delight.
In any case, with all the fun today, it took us a while to realize that Thomas had really given us no choice but to place him in the Conscience Caucus.
He's really not our prototypical member, mind you. And, at least from what I hear, with so much ego packed in that body, it's hard to know where to fit a conscience, let alone vital organs, imagination, a soul, carbon, water and whatever the other stuff is that most of us have within us as we shuffle around this mortal coil.
He's not saying he's against a phase-out, that he won't vote for it or that he's afraid of it. But whether we like it or not, when you say the president's phase-out plan is "DOA", you're Caucus-bound.
No two ways about it.
--Josh Marshall
Editors of the Onion infiltrate CNN polling unit: "Poll: Nation split on Bush as uniter or divider"
[ed.note: Thanks to TPM reader BP for the tip.]
--Josh Marshall
I don't want to upset anyone or cause any unnecessary emotional duress. But I think some of our Republican friends on Capitol Hill are trying to trick their constituents about their position on Social Security.
Yes, I know it's something none of us wants to think could happen. But bear with me.
Long-time readers of the site will remember that Republicans long called their plan to replace part of Social Security with private investment accounts 'privatization'. It was their word. They came up with it, embraced it, etc. That was until the 2002 election cycle came around and word went out from the NRCC to stop using the word 'privatization' and try as much as possible to get reporters to stop using it too.
Suddenly, 'privatization' was a slur, even though it was the Republicans' own word until word came down from party central to start zigging and by no means zag.
Orwellian word redefinition notwithstanding, however, for most folks the word 'privatization' still means 'private accounts'.
So here we have Rep. Mike Ferguson (R) of New Jersey. And his website says "Congressman Ferguson's principles on Social Security are clear: he opposes privatizing Social Security ..."
Nowhere does he even mention private accounts. And why should he? That's the same as privatization.
That seems pretty straightforward.
And, based on that, a TPM Reader wrote in thinking he'd found another member of our Conscience Caucus. I barely had the heart to tell him that Rep. Ferguson was trying to bamboozle him.
Republicans that are that down-the-line against privatization are pretty hard to come by. And a few lines down from that which I just quoted, we see that Rep. Ferguson notes the awards he won from the 60 Plus Assocation, to demonstrate his Social Security bona-fides.
Only problem is that 60 Plus is a pro-privatization astroturf group. Says who? Says they. On this February 15th, 2002 the group proudly noted that in 1995 they "became the first national senior citizens group to endorse publicly the privatization of Social Security ..."
There really seems to have been some terrible miscommunication here between Rep. Ferguson's office and 60 Plus, doesn't there? Sort of like the NRA awarding Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) their Gun Rights Man of the Year award.
Call me cynical. But I think Rep. Ferguson's trying to trick his constituents on Social Security, don't you?
Or how about Rep. Mark Kennedy (R) of Minnesota. He turns out to be a down-the-line anti-privatization man too. But the letter he's sending out to constituents contains some information that just may turn Washington on its ear.
"I applaud President Bush's courage in addressing the long-term status of Social Security," Kennedy writes in a constituent letter sent out yesterday. "Don't be misled: neither President Bush nor any Republican in Congress has a plan to privatize Social Security. I will oppose any plan that privatizes Social Security, cuts benefits, cuts survivors or disability benefits, or raises payroll taxes."
I sure am glad that Rep, Kennedy is taking such a strong line against misleading people. But who knew that President Bush has come out against privatization? And every Republican in Congress? Was this all just a big misunderstanding?
We're seeing example after example of this.
If this plan's so popular. Why do so many members of Congress want to trick their constituents into thinking they don't support it?
Late Update: Alas, more bad news for Rep. Ferguson. Here's his declaration of support for privatization on the Cato website from the year 2000. Here's an archived version in case the Cato gizmocrats rush to pull that one down.
Late Update: Say it ain't so! Here's Rep. Kennedy under the same 'privatization' banner from 2000.
Later than Late Update: My God, it gets worse. Sen. Dole says "no way am I for privatizing Social Security. I support the concept of allowing workers to contribute small portions of their own Social Security in the market because it would negate the need to nearly double payroll taxes on future workers to fund benefits ... This is not privatization – the government would always administer the program."
--Josh Marshall
I was just reading over the LA Times run-down of Chairman Bill Thomas's free-form policy aria over at the National Journal pow-wow yesterday afternoon. And they give more attention than the other dailies to the Chairman's more-in-sorrow-than-in-anger warning that the Democrats "risked eliminating themselves from a role in the forthcoming [Social Security] debate if they played the issue strictly for short-term political gain," in the words of the Times.
"If you start with the statement that your goal is to sabotage whatever we try to do, to try to put you in the majority [in control of Congress] in the next election," warned Thomas, "then I am forced to try to solve the problem on a partisanship basis."
When I read that my throat suddenly tightened. And with that familiar, panicked mix of fear and regret curling into dread, I thought, could we have squandered our chance at more of that first term lovin' from the Republican majority and the White House?
Could this all have been a terrible mistake? The words 'a partisanship basis' just keep echoing through my mind.
Can Allen Boyd still put in a word for us?
--Josh Marshall
Kerry to vote no on Rice nomination.
"Dr. Rice is a principal architect, implementer, and defender of a series of Administration policies that have not made our country as secure as we should be and have alienated much-needed allies in our common cause of winning the war against terrorism. Regrettably, I did not see in Dr. Rice's testimony any acknowledgment of the need to change course or of a new vision for America's role in the world."
--Josh Marshall
Tuesday afternoon I wrote a post asking some pointed questions about Marty Frost's candidacy for DNC Chair. A number of readers wrote in assuming, not unreasonably perhaps, that those questions were really implied statements. They weren't. They were meant as questions, the ones I think are most important for evaluating Frost's candidacy. I won't rehash the specifics; but if you're interested you can read the first post here.
There's a good bit of talk now that Frost was too friendly at this point or that to President Bush or that his track record is no good since he just lost his seat in Congress. But I don't agree in either case.
The reason -- the first, second, third and only reason -- Frost got run out of Congress was because of Tom DeLay's corrupt redistricting scheme from 2003. So that makes him less a loser than a martyr of a sort, though politics is a rough sport and that's too grandiloquent and overwrought a phrase for what happened to him. Enough to say, that I don't think it's a black mark on him politically.
I would be less than candid if I didn't say that Frost isn't the candidate I'd most like to see win this, though I'm trying to keep an open mind. But he's by no means the least either.
And as long as we're on the subject, for all the supercilious nattering, this seems like a great list of candidates to run the DNC. Usually the whole choice isn't even seriously canvassed among more than a few insiders. And the big contenders tend to be lobbyists and moneymen.
Not that I'm necessarily against either, in their place, mind you. But here, as near as I can see, are a group of candidates, most of whom have a clear argument and set of ideas about rebuilding, reshaping and generally toughening up the Democratic party. And most of them at least don't seem to be in it -- at least in any immediate sense -- for the purposes of future rainmaking.
We could do far worse.
--Josh Marshall
Also noted in several articles out this evening, House Ways and Means chairman Bill Thomas suggests he supports "gender-adjusting Social Security," i.e., raising the retirement age for women since they live longer.
That should go over well.
--Josh Marshall
Wednesday WaPo: "House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Bill Thomas (R-Calif.) predicted yesterday that partisan warfare over Social Security will quickly render President Bush's plan 'a dead horse' and called on Congress to undertake a broader review of the problems of an aging nation."
--Josh Marshall
Has a cat got Sen. Patty Murray's tongue? One of her constituents seems to think so.
--Josh Marshall
Fun with numbers.
We were curious to find out which congressional districts had the largest number of Social Security beneficiaries.
Here's what we came up with ...
FL 5 (250,771) Brown-Waite, Ginny (R)
FL 19 (184,624) Wexler, Robert (D)
FL 13 (182,035) Harris, Katherine (R)
FL 14 (181,094) Mack, Connie (R)
FL 16 (178,715) Foley, Mark (R)
AZ 2 (167,294) Franks, Trent (R)
MT (163,655) Rehberg, Dennis (R)
MI 1 (163,632) Stupak, Bart (D)
VA 9 (162,005) Boucher, Rick (D)
FL 15 (160,986) Weldon, Dave (R)
Just food for thought.
We're putting together some more tables with other variables mixed in. More soon.
--Josh Marshall
I'd like to pretty or butter this one up a bit; but I think it's more important not to beat around the bush. Rep. Rahm Emanuel (D) of Illinois went on Tim Russert's show Sunday to talk about Social Security, among other things, and it wasn't a pretty sight.
(You can read the transcript here and decide whether you think that's a fair judgment. Search for the phrase "looming fiscal crisis" and read from there. The tech-smart folks at C&L have also put the segment online, so you can view it here too.)
The Democratic party doesn't have many people in it smarter or more articulate than Rahm Emanuel. But smart people can embrace bad strategy. And bad strategy usually makes for bad rhetoric and bad results.
One problem with his performance was that he pretty inexplicably didn't remember that a quote Russert kept hitting him with was a quote from his old boss, Bill Clinton. How he didn't catch that given that one of the dates referenced in the quote pegged it as a statement from the late 1990s I don't know. But anyone can mess up on live TV.
The more troubling lapses were strategic.
There's been a debate going on amongst Democrats about whether it's better strategy to a) confront President Bush with an alternative reform proposal or b) call him on his scare-mongering and lies and make the case that Social Security is right for America.
The policy differences among Democrats aren't too great. There's a fairly broad consensus on improving access to individual investment accounts on top of Social Security. And even those who don't care much for the idea aren't particularly opposed to it. (For what it's worth, I think it's a very good idea.) So, again, there's little real disagreement on underlying policy. The difference is over the strategy to use in this emerging debate.
On the surface both arguments have points to recommend them. But on Russert's show, Emanuel, who is a proponent of Strategy A managed to make a very strong case for Strategy B.
Here's why.
If you read the transcript of Emanuel's exchange with Russert, he again and again reiterates his central argument that Democrats believe in private accounts on top of Social Security while President Bush wants them to be part of Social Security.
Yet, if you read the exchange, a viewer wouldn't come away with any particular sense of why this makes any difference or why they should care. I drive a Ford, you drive a Chevy; you say tomAto, I say tomAHto, etc. Who cares?
When Russert continued pressing the question of whether there is a Social Security 'crisis', Emanuel said 'no' but that there is a 'retirement savings' crisis which might be solved with the add-on accounts -- a universal 401k -- that Democrats favor.
So at this point we have a distinction between private accounts in Social Security and out of Social Security -- a distinction, the significance of which, is not at all clear. And then on the question of whether there's a crisis, we don't have the president's crisis, but a difference crisis -- one in savings for retirement.
As I said before, in each case, if you generously drill down to what Emanuel means in policy terms, he's making decent points. If there's any crisis in retirement security, it's not Social Security. The problem is that those things that are supposed to go along with Social Security (the three legs of the stool), private savings and pensions, are disappearing. But at the level of what he's actually saying, all the viewer gets is that Democrats and Republicans both believe in private accounts, with some distinction over whether they're in or out of Social Security. And both think there's a crisis; but the Democrats seem to have a different name for it.
That's a battle I guarantee you the Democrats will lose -- if for no other reason then that Emanuel gives the viewer no clear sense why the president's plan is a) bad for America, b) phases out Social Security or c) is based on a series of falsehoods. In so many words, he fails to attack the president's plan. And if there's nothing worth attacking, why bother to oppose it?
These, in so many words, are the problems. But I think we can expand the point to a broader critique. Folks like Emanuel don't seem to have absorbed the reality of the Democratic party's status as a party of opposition.
Here's what I mean.
When Bill Clinton was president, I'm not sure he had any bigger supporter than me. But many of those who worked with him in the White House got into a mindset that can easily lead Democrats astray in our present circumstances. Clinton's critics often knock him for his reliance on tactical positioning, on tacking back and forth against the wind, on finding the small rhetorical or policy distinctions, the sweet spots that could upend his opponents.
But when you hold the White House those approaches really can work -- because you have three levers of power, the executive branch, the bully pulpit and the veto pen. That power gives you control over the terms and pace of the debate. And those let you bring clever tactics and fancy footwork into play.
But the Democrats don't have any of that today. They're completely excluded from power in Washington. The only effective power they have is the ability to deny the president the cover of bipartisanship in enacting his agenda when his agenda conflicts with their fundamental principles.
The failure to understand this becomes clear later in the segment when Russert asks Emanuel for specifics about the Democrats' plan and he repeats the president's mantra about not negotiating with yourself.
This is almost a sad moment. And a similar thought was raised by Clintonite Gene Sperling a few days ago when he said Democrats needed to create a "framework for engagement" with President Bush on retirement security.
But Rahm and Gene, which part of this movie haven't you seen? Rahm doesn't have to worry about negotiating with himself because he isn't going to be negotiating at all. This isn't 1995 or 1996 when Clinton could dance around Newt Gingrich or hoodwink him with rhetoric and policy jujitsu. To the extent this gets down to a discussion of the nitty-gritty, Bush will just roll right over the Democrats.
And in a sense, why shouldn't he? One doesn't have to see this as a matter of President Bush's excessive partisanship or divisive governing style. True negotiations are seldom possible when there is a fundamental disparity in power between the two sides negotiating, as there is today between President Bush and his Democratic opposition.
When I think about Clintonite tactics and their one-time practitioners who are still in the game, I'm often reminded of a game of 'King of the Hill'. There are tactics that work great when you're at the top of the hill that aren't worth a damn when you're at the bottom. And there's nothing sadder than seeing someone at the bottom of the hill using top of the hill tactics. Actually, there is something sadder: when that person is you.
In a sense, Clinton used the powers of the presidency to create space for what is simply 'politics' -- the organized tussle of debating and changing minds. But most of President Bush's major legislation has gone through without 'politics' in this sense ever even happening. In almost every case, President Bush had his bill, he had compliant majorities in each chamber, and he just passed it. So long as there was not overwhelming and spirited public opposition it just went through. 'Politics', in the sense I've described it, seldom even got off the ground since it didn't particularly matter which way the public debate went.
No one is saying that Democrats should meet the president with effrontery. That would be counterproductive. Nor should the Democrats be unwilling to work together if President Bush supports legislation that doesn't go against Democrats' fundamental principles. But President Bush has made explicitly clear in this case that his proposal will go against those principles and he's made clear over the last four years that he has little interest in true legislative give-and-take.
Given those facts and given that the Democrats hold neither the White House nor either chamber of Congress, the only power the Democrats have is their power to state the facts clearly and withhold the legitimacy they alone can impart through providing bipartisan cover. This isn't rude or political. If Democrats believe private accounts are wrong they should say so and vote so. No voter expects politicians to vote for bills they believe are flatly wrong.
Is there a Social Security crisis? No.
There's no reason to cook up some other 'crisis' to provide some sort of silly balance.
Is the president being honest about private accounts? No.
Will Democrats support a phase-out bill with private accounts? No.
Should the Democrats have an alternative beyond just saying 'no'. Yes, they should. And they have a very good one. But it is very much the secondary part of the strategy. And their alternative can only be comprehensible and effective if the primary part is made sufficiently clear: that Democrats don't believe Social Security is in crisis and that whatever long-term funding challenges it faces do not require a fundamental revision of the structure of the program, let alone phasing it out as President Bush wants to do.
This is what opposition parties do. State their contrary vision where they have one, vote their principles on matters of fundamental political difference, and build a clear contrast on key issues which they can take to the voters in the next election. All the more so when the facts and the people's values are on their side. That's democracy.
--Josh Marshall
Democratic Whip Steny Hoyer of Maryland endorses Martin Frost for DNC Chair, according to a press release just put out by Frost's people.
That's a pretty big feather in Frost's cap.
But my question would be this: If I'm not mistaken most of Frost's tenure in office was under the Democratic majority. Many members of Congress, about whom the same can be said, still haven't gotten out of the majority mindset, notwithstanding the fact that the Republicans have held the gavel for ten years. So the question: What have the Bush years taught Frost about the Democrats' future, or more specifically, how they can go about having one?
What's his critique of the old Dem Majority? What does he have to say to Democrats who wonder whether, in spite of his great Democratic credentials, he isn't trapped in the old ways of thinking, an outdated mindset?
--Josh Marshall
Bush broke?
One thing we tend to take for granted, if nothing else, is that the 43rd president is a wealthy man. After all, that's the reward of a lifetime's work running companies into the ground and then handing them off to your dad's cronies. But if you look at his most recent federal financial disclosure form from May 2004, you'll see that a good percentage of President Bush's personal wealth is tied up in (horribile dictu!) US Treasury notes, i.e., a worthless stack of paper/IOUs.
How ole' 43 let himself get into such a financial crisis it's hard to say. But perhaps it explains some of the belligerence?
[Special Thanks to TPM reader AP for the tip.]
[ed.note: Unfortunately, federal financial disclosure forms only includes ranges of value for a given asset, not the exact dollar amount. But perhaps some enterprising blogger -- or even, reporter -- should print out the form, get out the calculator and come up with a rough figure for how much of Mr. Bush's wealth is tied up in this funny money.]
--Josh Marshall
Let's not miss the big news in today's article in the Times about Dick Cheney. The vice president supports putting over 95% of the employee-side contribution to Social Security into private accounts.
Unfortunately, the authors construct the sentence in a somewhat murky fashion. But the key passage is this one: "Mr. Cheney is said by associates to favor creating investment accounts into which workers could deposit 4 percent to 6 percent of their earnings that are subject to the Social Security payroll tax."
In orther words, Cheney supports putting 4 to 6 percentage points of each individual's 6.2% contribution into a private investment account and taking it out of the Social Security system.
(Just for maximum clarity, that means about 97% of the employee's payroll tax contribution, which is 6.2% of their salary up to $90,000. And it's about 48% of the total Social Security money going into the program for the given individual since the employer also kicks in another 6.2%.)
So, in other words, the initial 'partial' phase of the Social Security phase-out, turns about to be 50% phase-out. And the only money going into Social Security comes from the employer. How long do you figure that lasts?
--Josh Marshall
Disability benefits likely to be cut under the Bush plan. But if they didn't save enough before getting disabled, who are they to complain?
--Josh Marshall
Good news on the "Byrd Rule". It looks like there's no way Frist and Co. can get around the need for 60 votes in the Senate. Mark Schmitt has the details. Seemingly arcane; but if you're interested in how all this is going to turn out, a really big deal.
--Josh Marshall
Interesting Data:
Top ten highest concentrations of Social Security beneficiaries as a percentage of a state's population ...
West Virginia 22.4%
Maine 20.1%
Arkansas 19.9%
Florida 19.6%
Pennsylvania 19.3%
Alabama 19.3%
Kentucky 18.7%
Iowa 18.5%
Mississippi 18.5%
Missouri 18.1%
Worst demographic for President Bush on Social Security, by age ...
In the new Washington Post/ABC poll, President Bush has a 38% approval rating on Social Security and a 55% disapproval. 7% have no opinion.
Which is his worst age bracket? 18-30 year olds. They give him 33% approval/60% disapproval.
--Josh Marshall
WLBZ Channel 2 out of Bangor, Maine notes "sixteen percent of Maine's population is elderly, one of the highest percentages in the nation," and that people in the state are watching the Social Security debate closely.
There's a bit more than one and a quarter million Mainers. And just over 20% of them are current Social Security beneficiaries. That's the second highest number in the nation.
Says, the report on the WLBZ website: "Senator Olympia Snowe, who sits on the Finance Committee, is worried about the risks of stock market investment. Snowe says other options are avilable, including tax incentives to encourage retirement savings."
Sen. Snowe, who's up for reelection next year, has been generally mum on the subject. And has made only vague comments about her position.
--Josh Marshall
I've been working away at a post on Rep. Rahm Emanuel's (D) appearance yesterday on Meet the Press, which I promised yesterday. But the recent flurry of activity on Social Security has left me seriously far behind on a book proposal I'm trying to write. And in any case, I think most folks are away from their computers today. So I'll try to bring you that tomorrow.
--Josh Marshall
A Death Observed: Marjorie Williams, reporter, essayist and Washington Post columnist died at her home yesterday in Washington. She was 47 and had been diagnosed with liver cancer in 2001. She is survived by her husband, Slate columnist Tim Noah, and two children, Will and Alice.
--Josh Marshall
Ketchum, the PR firm the Department of Education hired to hire Armstrong Williams to shill for the No Child Left Behind Act, pins the blame on Williams.
"[Williams] has said numerous times that he should've disclosed and we agree with that," says Lorraine Thelian, Ketchum's senior partner in charge of North American operations. "We would assume that the commentator pundit/would disclose. That's an assumption that you make ... Whatever he did once that contract was put together, he did on his own."
--Josh Marshall
The San Francisco Chronicle says phase-out lobbyists have their eyes on three members of the Faction ...
Democrats have responded that Bush is manufacturing a crisis where none exists.But lobbyists point to a handful of potential Democratic compromisers who have not ruled out private accounts, including Sen. Mary Landrieu, D-La., Rep. Harold Ford, D-Tenn., and Sen. Joe Lieberman, D-Conn.
See the rest of the piece here.
--Josh Marshall