For thoughts on the death of John Paul II, please see this post from Friday evening.
--Josh Marshall
Bamboozlepalooza, Street Theater Edition!
Next Tuesday President Bush is taking the Bamboozlepalooza Tour to West Virginia.
But he's going somewhere special, Parkersburg, home of the Bureau of Public Debt. That's where the Treasury notes that make up the Social Security Trust Fund are kept -- the ones the president and his allies deride as worthless slips of paper or worthless IOUs.
Indeed, in announcing the president's visit, White House spokesman Taylor Gross noted that "This is a center that, in a sense, houses the IOUs of Social Security." And then he went on to say that "the president seeks to highlight the fact that the IOUs housed at Parkersburg are a good example of why this system needs to be fixed."
After touring the Bureau, the president is scheduled to move on to a Bamboozlepalooza event at West Virginia University at Parkersburg.
Now, the article on the visit in the Parkersburg News and Sentinel, which appeared before the death of John Paul II, noted that the Pope's then-apparently-imminent death could lead to a change in scheduling of the president's trip. But whenever the visit occurs, the clear aim is to create footage of the president chatting up or even handling the debt instruments he says are worthless and that he is so committed to not repaying or defaulting on.
Now, if there were any shame in the man or any sense in the media, this would be treated like a case of the crook returning to the scene of the crime -- only we might say, in this case, in advance of the bad act he aspires to.
But it would certainly make sense for the supporters of Social Security to raise this question again now in the clearest terms: Does the president believe that those Treasury notes are backed by the full faith and credit of the United States and will he guarantee those funds will be repaid?
Late Update: TPM Reader AK writes in with a splendid bit of lexical or phraseological insight. What the president is doing is casing the joint.
Even Later Update: Actually, why didn't I realize this the first time through? The president is making a special stop at the Bureau of Public Debt to view his legacy.
--Josh Marshall
Did the fat man sing?
As was widely reported yesterday, House Speaker Denny Hastert (R) of Illinois is quoted in the National Journal saying he doesn't believe the Republican Congress will be able to pass a Social Security phase-out bill in 2005.
He says it will have to wait until 2006.
Now, the idea that the Republicans are going to have the fortitude, shall we say, to pass a phase-out bill within six months of an election when they were too scared to do it eighteen months before an election is preposterous.
So what Hastert is saying is that Social Security phase-out is over in the 109th Congress.
Mind you, that doesn't mean I think it's over. But that is what he's saying, for all who have ears to hear it.
(ed.note: Another point worth noting is that the White House either didn't or couldn't get Hastert to eat his words like they did with Bill Frist. Hastert followed up by saying he'd like to pass a bill this year. But that means nothing. He'd like to, but he doesn't think it's possible.)
--Josh Marshall
I try to follow a rule of not commenting or else saying little about topics on which I have no particular expertise or knowledge. But the apparently-imminent death of John Paul II is a historic event, unique at least in our lifetimes. So let me just share some thoughts with you.
One memory that stands out in my mind is from 1978, sitting down with my grandfather in a TV and card-playing room in the seniors’ apartment complex where my grandparents then lived. We were sitting in front of the TV, perhaps after he or I got too bored playing gin rummy with each other, and I think I must have asked why there wasn’t anything else on beside stuff about picking a new Pope. And my memory is hearing my grandfather say to me, in this almost passive sort of shrug I remember so well about him, ‘Ehh, everything now is the Vatican …”
This would have been when I was nine and my grandfather was 68. And it was a seniors’ retirement community run by the local B’nai B’rith in St. Louis. One other thing that is worth mentioning --- especially for people under thirty --- is that before John Paul II, the Pope was a much more, well … parochial figure than he has been in the decades since.
The Pope didn’t travel around the world. He was always an Italian. And he was far less involved in the ecumenical work that played such a role in John Paul’s pontificate. All of this goes to say that for a Jewish nine-year-old and his grandfather sitting in a rec room in a Jewish retirement home in 1978, the Pope was a much more distant figure than he would be to almost any of us today.
The day in question came when the conclave of Cardinals was meeting for the second time in little more than a month to elect a Pope --- John Paul I (Albino Luciani), remember, had died after only 33 days in office. These papal elections were getting wall-to-wall coverage on TV. And such blanket coverage was a far rarer occurence in the days before CNN and cable news than it is today when almost any drama gets the 24-7 treatment.
My recollection has no particular or greater consequence. And I mention it mainly because to me it symbolizes the fact that even as a man of 36 I have no real living memory of any Pope other than this man.
At an earlier point in my life I was much more interested in and immersed in religious and theological questions --- out of both academic and personal interest. So these are issues that I thought more about then than I do now. But thinking of John Paul II today I have a feeling of great respect and even an element of reverence but also, with all that, very mixed feelings.
On first blush, I think of all the ways he brought the Catholic Church into the modern world --- and, in this sense, I mean not so much Catholicism (Vatican II did that) but the institutional church and the papacy. I think most of his ecumenicism and the truly epochal changes he wrought in the Roman Catholic Church’s relationship with Judaism and the Jewish people, symbolized by his visit to the Synagogue of Rome in 1986. I think of his ecumenical dialogue with Anglicanism and Eastern Orthodoxy or his preaching at a Lutheran Church in 1983 --- an almost inconceivable event for someone steeped in the history of Early Modern Europe and the Reformation.
I think also of his ambivalent political legacy in the Third World. On the one hand he was hostile, even authoritarian in the measures he employed, toward Liberation Theology in Latin America. And yet he also made great strides in elevating that strain of Catholicism which, in the Third World especially, has always been on the side of the poor and the powerless (where it should be), and diminishing that often dominant portion which casts its lot with the wealthy and the powerful (where it has so often been).
Separate from all these individual points John Paul II has simply been a towering figure -- a perception that I imagine will grow as he recedes into history. And that is a striking thing in itself since he was a compromise candidate; and the Cardinals probably didn't have a clear sense of what they were getting into when they chose him.
Yet in recent years especially (and this isn’t to say that the traditionalist dimension of John Paul’s pontificate hasn’t been there from the beginning --- witness his special relationship with the deeply reactionary Opus Dei) his focus on family and sexual traditionalism has seemed to push most of this to the side, even to override it where they came into any tension, creating a papacy which viewed the whole world through the prism of a few key questions surrounding reproduction, sex and death and in some cases, in my opinion, verging or lapsing into a theological obscurantism.
I know this is a very broad brush for a very big subject. And I also recognize that there is a perspective from which these different elements of John Paul’s tenure and teaching --- even seemingly disparate or contradictory ones --- all fit together into a unified whole, a seamless cloth. So these thoughts aren’t offered as anything definitive or complete; they’re merely reflections for this day. So let me set all of that aside for the moment.
This article in the Times of London seemed a particularly rich summing-up of the Pope's transition out of life. The author captures the mix of a waiting world and also this small, passing moment in the Pope's quarters -- he and a few others presumably -- as they wait for the end.
The atmosphere of the moment also makes me think of the point Andrew Sullivan has made so eloquently in recent days with respect to the Schiavo case: that life is not an unqualified good at all times and under all circumstances. Nor is death, by extension, an unqualified evil. Indeed, in a Christian worldview it is almost unimaginable that death can be seen as such. And yet much of the commentary on Schiavo from the right seems almost to embrace that view -- leading to what Andrew -- if I remember correctly -- called not so much a respect for life as its fetishisation.
"This evening or this night," said Angelo Comastri, the vicar general for Vatican City, today, "Christ opens the door to the Pope." In the death of a man like the Pope for whom those words aren't a consolation or metaphor but life's deepest reality, what's possible for those watching and waiting is not just a tearful grief moving toward acceptance but a latent joy.
To TPM's Catholic readers let me extend a very sincere message and feeling of respect, condolence and solidarity in this moment of loss and grief and a shared hope for renewal and rebirth.
--Josh Marshall
I was interviewed by a reporter today about the DeLay furor. And at one point we touched on this new 'counter-attack' which DeLay's partisans are trying to mount against his growing chorus of critics. Will it make a difference? Will they quiet the storm? And so forth.
There's a post at DailyKos which gives some examples of the degree to which major conservative leaders are now willing to stake their all on defending Tom DeLay. And it's worth noting that there doesn't seem to be much defense on the merits (in the sense of denying the voluminous evidence of his corruption); he's just their guy; and they'll attacks whoever attacks him.
But set that aside for the moment.
When DeLay says 'bring it on' to his critics and marshals the full host of movement conservatism to defend him, I can't imagine that worries his critics a wink. I don't say that because these folks are impotent or can't raise a ruckus; they can. It is rather that in purely partisan terms the aim of the people leading the charge against DeLay is to raise his profile, to make him the face of the Republican majority on capitol hill -- with all his full measure of snarl, extremity and venality.
So if DeLay's cronies want to go to war with Public Campaign or the Campaign for America's Future or anyone else, I can't imagine they mind. Because that's just another way to drive home the reality that these groups are trying so hard to demonstrate: that Tom DeLay is the Republican majority -- extreme on a few key 'culture' issues and, beside that, on the block for the highest bidder.
When Democrats go corrupt, they betray their principles. And certainly it's happened enough times. With someone like DeLay, there are no principles to betray. It's just money and power from the git-go. And really that means just power. A cash-and-carry operation.
Nothing changes from the alpha to the omega save that you eventually run afoul of the law.
--Josh Marshall
Beauprez sees the light of day?
Representative Bob Beauprez (R) of Colorado today spoke out against the ejection of three non-Bush-loyalists at the Bamboozlepalooza event in his district back on the 21st.
Here's part of what the congressman said Peter Boyle’s morning show on KHOW-AM in Denver ...
It’s unfortunate. This kind of stuff should never really happen. At least as I understand it, these folks showed up – they’ve got every right to be there. There was a pro-Bush leaning crowd but by no means at all, my understanding, a 100% pro-Bush crowd. And unless they did something wrong there’s no reason why the should be yanked out of there and escorted through the door.
I listened to <$Ad$>the whole discussion. And while Beauprez certainly didn't dump on the president, he didn't seem overly-impressed by the claim that the unnamed event official in question was just some local Republican that the White House had no connection with.
Scott McClellan, of course, continues to say that nobody did anything wrong -- or, rather, to borrow an unfortunate phrase, that the three were asking for it.
But I have to imagine that Beauprez's statement will raise the pressure to find out just who these people were who tossed the non-Bush-True attendees out. After all, it was an event in his district, thrown for him. We know similar incidents have occurred at Bamboozlepalooza events across the country, so there's really no serious question that this is White House policy. So let's get to the bottom of it.
--Josh Marshall
George Radich is a constituent of Allegheny County State Rep. Jeffrey E. Habay.
Radich and four other constituents petitioned a Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court to audit the records of Habay's political action Committee, the Friends of Jeff Habay. So, according to charges filed today, the next time he received a letter from Radich, Habay sprinkled some white powder on to the envelope and then called the cops, claiming that Radich had tried to take him out with an Anthrax mailing.
Unfortunately for his sake, Habay is apparently a fool since Radich had, uncharacteristically for a Anthrax mailer, included a return address. And things went even worse for him when it turned out that he had paid for the postage with a credit card.
Habay is already awaiting trial on unrelated ethics charges and, if there was any sense to things, would also be charged with being a friggin' moron.
--Josh Marshall
Rep. Tom DeLay: "This loss happened because our legal system did not protect the people who need protection most, and that will change. The time will come for the men responsible for this to answer for their behavior, but not today. Today we grieve, we pray, and we hope to God this fate never befalls another."
Like moth to a flame. He can't help himself.
And who is he threatening retribution and punishment against? The judge or Michael Schiavo?
--Josh Marshall
Pomeroy is on the <$NoAd$> case ...
North Dakota's congressional delegation wants to get to the bottom of a list that barred more than 40 people from President Bush's speech last month in Fargo.Rep. Earl Pomeroy said Wednesday his concern stems from a similar incident in Denver, where three people were removed from Bush's March 21 town hall meeting on Social Security.
Pomeroy said the Denver incident raises disturbing questions given what also happened in Fargo. He said he'll evaluate what must be done to launch an inquiry.
"We need to find out whether this was part of the official planning," he said.
See the rest here.
--Josh Marshall
Since the beginning of this current round of the privatization debate -- now going back more than four months -- critics have made a simple and I think unassailable point: the privatizers' argument for the gains to be had from private accounts don't hold up because they use optimistic economic assumptions to forecast returns from private accounts but very pessimistic assumptions to predict the future of Social Security.
In other words, it's a bogus comparison. Whether our economic future is rosy or grim, we can only compare a future with private accounts to one with Social Security by using one common set of economic assumptions.
Suddenly now, this point is all the rage. A majority of economists surveyed by Bloomberg say that private accounts won't do as well as the White House says if we're really heading into a 21st century of anemic growth. And the Times devotes a whole article to the point in tomorrow's paper.
There's nothing shocking or untoward about the sudden interest in this point. And the Times piece is pegged to a paper that is set to be presented tomorrow at Brookings. But I'm always struck by the lack of rhyme or reason to why a particular point or argument suddenly gains traction after a long period of inattention, even when the facts on the ground and the governing assumptions haven't changed a bit. It's no more true today than it was four months or two months ago.
The only difference is that the market for articles predicting the demise of privatization has become more bullish.
--Josh Marshall
This Post article says conservative intellectuals are jumping off the phase-out bandwagon. This one says it's losing support among the young. This one says economists and economic strategists say the numbers don't add up. This one says retirees are giving the thumbs down to privatization.
If the phase-out crew didn't still have a lock on fidgety right-wingers with poor social skills, where would they be?
--Josh Marshall
TPM Reader BG makes a good point: "The president says 'If you've got an idea, I expect you to be at the table. We want to listen to good ideas.' How does this square with the forcible removal from the presidential gatherings of anyone exhibiting the merest hint of an appearance of possibly harboring independent thoughts?"
--Josh Marshall
Bamboozlepalooza chugs through Iowa. And after the president leaves, the big GOP pooh-bahs say it was a flop. So reports the Post.
--Josh Marshall
President Bush warns of political consequences for lawmakers who oppose his wildly unpopular privatization plan.
(ed.note: We ran this post in place of our update on TPM's hostile takeover of Viacom.)
--Josh Marshall
Another interesting account of Rep. Reichert's townhall meeting in Washington state.
--Josh Marshall
A point of personal privilege ... As many of you know, my wife and I got married about a week and a half ago. And as those of you who've taken this step in life know, in addition to all the excitement and drama and feeling your life at your fingertips, there are also these mundane arrangements that have to be attended to -- a caterer, a photographer, getting everybody to the right place on time and making sure they get sent back to wherever it was they came from, and definitely in one piece and hopefully at a reasonable hour.
And then if all these people you hire or ask or beg to do this and that all come through, then you can concentrate on the joy and excitement and feeling your life at your very fingertips -- or rather sit back and let it all rush over you.
We had a small wedding - a few more than forty people in a private home. And we were lucky to have it all come off just as we'd planned, or rather, imagined it.
So I'd like to take a moment to recommend to you two people who made that possible -- our caterer and our photographer, both of whom came through for us in every way we could have hoped for. I'm not going to mention them by name - because that might be a mixed blessing. But if you or someone you know is looking for a recommendation for a wedding photographer, let me know and I'll put you in touch with someone whose work is second-to-none. And -- which is probably more likely -- if you have some event, large or small, that you need a caterer for in the greater New York region, drop me a line and I'll put you in touch with just the right person.
--Josh Marshall
An excellent post by Kevin Drum on Bamboozlepalooza and the president's cowardice, which is for the ages.
--Josh Marshall
At the Reichert townhall meeting in Bellevue last night, I'm told that one of the biggest laugh lines (at least in the crowd's opinion) came when Treasury spokesman Rob Nichols insisted that there would be no transition costs under President Bush's phase-out plan.
TPM Reader MN reported in that ...
While things settled down for most of the hour and half after the initial flurry, what got the crowd aroused again was Rob Nichols statement that there would be "no transition cost" to implementing the Bush "architecture" for Social Security. When Nichols said the 10-year projection of $750 billion was not new costs, but simply like prepaying a mortgage, an audience member asked loudly what about after that, but Nichols said they hadn't projected beyond that. A large segment of the audience did not seem to believe that and Nichols later backpedaled somewhat by saying that the "financing" issue was separate from the "cost" issue. Ah, semantics, the last refuge of scoundrels!
We heard pretty much the same from TPM Reader MB ...
The Treasury Department representative, Rob Nichols, claimed that there would be no transition costs involved in creating "personal accounts". When the crowd reacted loudly, he repeated the claim, saying "this is precisely factual, [no transition costs]." That just provoked laughter.
TPM Reader JM could barely believe what he was hearing ...
It was a bit shocking to hear Rob Nichols, assistant secretary for public affairs at the Treasury Department, actually say out loud that U.S. government bonds in the trust fund are just worthless IOUs, causing an uproar from the audience. (This guy works for the Treasury Department!?) He also was emphatic that there would be exactly zero transition costs for establishing private accounts. "After all, it is simply like pre-paying your mortgage." He said this prepayment would require only $700 billion for the first 10 years, and to shouts of what about the second 10 years, claimed that they hadn't run the numbers. The audience wasn't buying it judging from the catcalls. Finally, Sally Canfield, assistant to Denny Hastert, tried to throw out the line about how each year we delay costs another $690 billion, until brought to a screeching halt by a cry of "Liar" from someone in the crowd.
But this isn't just the Rob Nichols' line.
According to Reuters, at the Bamboozlepalooza event today in Bozeman, Secretary Snow said the same thing ...
U.S. Treasury Secretary John Snow said on Wednesday he was confused by resistance to the Bush administration's plans to overhaul the Social Security system, while protesters blasted the proposed private retirement accounts during his stop in Montana.Snow, in remarks to the Chamber of Commerce in Bozeman, said he believed personal accounts for young workers would be cost-free for the existing Social Security system and would not affect benefits to retirees or near-retirees.
Do they have any actual journalists out there following Snow to ask him the what the hell he's talking about<$NoAd$>?
Late Update: Some more details on Snow's job here.
--Josh Marshall
Hmmm (take 2) ...
The article about the Denver Three in the Rocky Mountain News <$NoAd$> says ...
Weise, an attorney, said she and her companions are members of a political group called the Denver Progressives. She said they never intended to be disruptive, get thrown out or arrested."I have never seen a president in person," Weise said. "For me, it was kind of exciting to be involved in a historic, presidential event. I did want to hear what the president has to say about Social Security."
The three obtained tickets to the president's speech from Congressman Bob Beauprez's office. They were dressed in business or other normal attire, though each also wore a T-shirt underneath with the slogan "Stop the Lies." They discussed showing off the slogan but decided against it.
Shortly after they found seats, they were hustled out by a man who had been identified to them as Secret Service.
On the other hand in the gaggle discussion this morning about the Colorado incident, Scott McClellan said: "I don't know the full circumstances of it. There are different sides to the story, I recognize that. But those individuals, themselves, said that their intent of coming to the event originally was to disrupt it (italics added)."
--Josh Marshall
Hmmm ... a bit more on the Bamboozlepalooza event where the three non-Bush-loyalists were tossed by a guy <$Ad$>who appeared to be a Secret Service agent.
According to this article in the Rocky Mountain News, the three in question were specifically told by event officials that they were being held until Secret Service agents came to escort them out of the building.
So it seems it wasn't just a case of these guys seeing a guy in a black suit and an earpiece and figuring he was Secret Service.
The three also claim that the real Secret Service agent who later investigated the incident told them that there have been repeated incidents of Republican operative posing as Secret Service agents to toss folks who aren't Bush-True out of taxpayer-funded Bamboozlepalooza events.
We can also add this to the mix.
A reader from the White House press corps tells us ...
Yes, well, I've never seen "rent-a-cops" at presidential events. Local cops, yes. State cops, yes. Military folks, yes. Uniformed Secret Service, yes. But mall security guard types? Nyet, comrade.My guess, since I was not at the event, is that a local volunteer affiliated with the White House, or a travelling advance person (a junior aide in charge of the logistics of presidential and press travel), ushered them out.
I say this because it's not uncommon for those low-level folks to wear suits and ties, and because they frequently use what every reader of TPM would recognize as Hollywood's Secret Service communications system, a talk mike clipped inside the sleeve, and an earpiece. And lots of male Bush volunteers and advance people wear their hair almost short enough to be confused for military style, or Secret Service. And they wear little pins in their lapels that look like the kinds of pins that museums give to people who have made a donation. (The Service has more official-looking pins).
I've encountered 22-year-old, suited, earpiece-equipped volunteers who have tried to order me around without either good sense, authority, or instructions from higher-ups. It's easy to handle when you're press ("Interesting request. Um, how can I put this? No.") but I can imagine that it's scary if you don't know that they have very little power. As a rule of thumb, I would ask for credentials (badge, ID card) from anyone not obviously carrying a gun or wearing a uniform. Do it with a smile, though. Maybe "How do I know you're with the White House?"
Late word we hear is that McClellan got asked about this in the gaggle. So we'll try to bring you that shortly.
--Josh Marshall
We can't do it without you!
As we said last night, we're putting 
together a list of the top ten Social Security Switch-Hitters in Congress. That is to say, the most bamboozling of the Bamboozlers (see last night's post on methodology for more details).
We're looking for the ten members of Congress who've not only managed to get away without telling their constituents where they stand on the most important and contentious issue of the day (Social Security) but have managed to make an art of it in the process.
Rep. Heather Wilson (R) of New Mexico is guaranteed a slot for using crafty bamboozle language to fool local press into thinking she opposed the president's plan when in fact she <$Ad$>hasn't come out against it. We also received a very strong nomination for Rep. Jeb Bradley (R) of New Hampshire who managed a very similar feat.
So remember, mere evasiveness or lack of a definitive position won't be enough to get your representative or senator into the top ten. We need to hear about one position one day and another position the next, reps. retreating to undisclosed locations during congressional recesses, bravura bamboozle language. If your rep. wore a disguise to the local mall that would probably put them into the top three. In other words, it's got to be good.
Send in your nominations today!
--Josh Marshall
Rep. Vito Fossella (R) of Staten Island still refuses to hold a townhall meeting with constituents about phasing out Social Security. So the In This Together campaign is holding one for him.
According to this press release, they're holding a townhall meeting in Fossella's district tonight at 7 PM.
When we stopped by the congressman's website today we noticed he's saved us the effort of coordinating with his constituents and gone ahead and posted his own constituent letter on Social Security.
In the letter, he writes: "Let me be clear: I do not support the privatization of Social Security. I never have and I never will."
He then goes on to lay the groundwork for supporting President Bush's plan to privatize Social Security. So, as you can see, Fossella's got the bamboozling game plan pretty much down.
And as long as we're on the subject, what's the deal with that fundraiser Fossella held with Jack Abramoff and fellow DeLay crony Tony Rudy at Camden Yards back in June of '02?
--Josh Marshall
The empire strikes back. DeLay backers, according to The Hill, are plotting a counterattack.
Needless to say, the defining motif of all conservative politics is victimization. As is the case here. "It was a rallying cry to our conservative community that we are under assault. We need to fight back," says Rep. Cantor (R) of Virginia.
--Josh Marshall
Interesting point. Could the rent-a-cops at the Bamboozlepalooza events who pretend to be Secret Service agents when they boot (non-Bush-True) attendees be breaking the law?
Late Update: Let me clarify this point. Precisely what happened here is unclear. What we know is that the ejectees say they were removed by men whose dress, accoutrement and bearing appeared to them be those of Secret Service agents. The ejectees have further said that Secret Service officials subsequently denied that their agents were involved. However, I do not believe there is any evidence that said rent-a-cops verbally identified themselves as members of the Secret Service.
--Josh Marshall
Fade to red (state)?
Giuliani signs on with Houston law firm which once represented Enron.
Penance for Kerik?
Late Update: As TPM Reader DB suggests, we expect Rudy to be clearing brush in Central Texas any day now.
--Josh Marshall
Trial Balloon?
CNN's Carlos Watson says President Bush may try to phase out Social Security for federal workers by executive order. I guess if the democratic legislation approach doesn't pan out this may be next.
--Josh Marshall
It was a long time coming. <$NoAd$>But Rep. John Tanner (D) of Tennessee is out of the Fainthearted Faction.
TPM Reader Rex Leatherwood attended Tanner's townhall meeting last night and sent in the following ...
I attended a John Tanner Town Hall Meeting tonight at Union University (a Southern Baptist University) in Jackson, Tennessee. Congressman Tanner made it quite clear that he was against the President’s plan. Here are some quotes: “We’re (the Democrats) not going to negotiate with the President until he takes this bad idea off the table” and “We need to fix the floor (Social Security) and then give preferential tax treatment to savings outside Social Security.” When talking about the necessity to borrow over a trillion dollars to finance the President’s plan, he said “I think it’s immoral to leave young people this debt. I believe my generation should pay as it goes.”
Rex's account is confirmed by this article in this morning's Jackson Sun. The Sun quotes Tanner saying this about private accounts: "Don't play the stock market with money you can't afford to lose."
--Josh Marshall
It didn't go well for Fainthearted <$NoAd$> Faction Dean Allen Boyd either. This from the Tallahassee Democrat ...
U.S. Rep. Allen Boyd was being pelted with Social Security questions and comments ranging from seriously skeptical to hotly hostile Tuesday night when a woman who won't be affected by pending changes herself seemed to summarize what the national furor is all about."When I retire, I want to retire," said Marguerite Burton. "I don't mind doing volunteer work, but I want to be guaranteed that our benefits will be there. And I want them to be there for my children and grandchildren."
...
"There are some tough choices to be made, no free lunch here," Boyd said as he roamed the audience, microphone in hand, like a southern Phil Donahue. "We're going to make the wealthy people pay more for this plan and protect the low-wage workers."
Instead of asking a question, Joe Cain just asked "for a quick show of hands" for or against Boyd's plan. With a chorus of groans, audience sentiment ran heavily against Boyd's suggestions and Cain estimated the vote was 4-1 or more against the idea.
"Coming out tonight was worth the trip, just to find out that I'm wealthy," said Richard Willis, who said he earns in the area Boyd wants to raise the Social Security tax ceiling. "But your privatization scheme has nothing to do with solvency. This is a system of social insurance, not personal investment."
There was one good moment for Boyd. He got the author of the article to buy into his bamboozlement language. Writes Tallahassee Democrat Political Editor Bill Cotterell at one point in the article: "The Kolbe-Boyd plan does not privatize Social Security and - like President Bush's plan - won't affect benefits for workers 55 and older."
--Josh Marshall
"Emotions run high at Social Security forum," says the headline in the King County Journal. Here's their article on Rep. Dave Reichert's <$NoAd$>townhall meeting last night back in the district ...
Dave Reichert came to the people Tuesday night to talk about Social Security, and they talked back.Reichert, three months into 8th District in Congress, held a town hall-style meeting at Bellevue High School in which the 300-strong crowd demonstrated the strength of their opinions, at times shouting over Reichert or the other people sharing the stage with him.
The event was structured as a question-and-answer session, but with the audience's questions submitted in writing, to be asked by moderator Jim Vesely, editorial page editor of the Seattle Times.
A three-member panel then debated the answers, with Reichert occasionally chiming in.
The audience clearly disagreed with the panelists on their endorsement -- which Reichert shares -- of a part of President Bush's plan to introduce privately managed investment accounts as part of a Social Security reform program.
As it happens, at least three of those three hundred were TPM Readers who sent in detailed reports of all the bamboozling that took place. One nice moment, according the Journal article, came when an audience member asked about raising the payroll tax cap. Paul Guppy, the think tank 'winger and former Ernie Istook staffer on the panel, whom we discussed last night, responded: "You could raise the cap to $1 million if you want to, I don't think it would help." So you can see what a straight shooter he must be.
We'll try to bring you more on this train wreck later in the day.
--Josh Marshall
Count Chocola thought his past would never catch up with him.
But he didn't count on TPM 
Reader BB!
A month ago we put out <$NoAd$> word that there was a bounty of a brand new 'Privatize This' TPM Shirt for that intrepid supporter of Social Security who could find us the original paper copy of the October 8th, 2000 Elkhart Truth in which Rep. Chris Chocola (R) of Indiana not only proclaimed his support for President Bush's privatization plan but insisted that that still wasn't enough to slake his thirst for private accounts.
"Bush's plan of individual investment of 2 percent of the money is a start," crowed the Count. "Eventually, I'd like to see the entire system privatized."
As we've now chronicled in what is likely painful detail, Rep. Chocola has since denied ever supporting any sort of privatization, let alone the total privatization he longed for in 2000. He has even gone so far as to demand that ads which use the quote above be removed from the airwaves.
In any case, like a treasured bootleg of Dylan touring with the Hawks in 1966 or an early blue movie of some rising starlet, everyone knows the goods are out there. And yet actually getting your hands on a copy is no mean proposition. But thanks to BB, we've got a copy of the original, a small portion of which you can see for yourself on the right.
--Josh Marshall
A bit earlier today I mentioned that freshman Rep. Dave Reichert (R) of Washington state was holding a 'forum' on Social Security this evening, moderated by James Vesely, The Seattle Times' editorial page editor.
The participants, reports the paper, were ...
Rob Nichols, assistant secretary for public affairs at the U.S. Treasury Department and previously an aide to former Reichert's predecessor, Republican Jennifer Dunn; Paul Guppy, research director at the Washington Policy Center, a Seattle think tank; and Sally Canfield, assistant to House Speaker Dennis Hastert, R-Ill.
Now, when I first saw this article this afternoon, it wasn't hard to see that this wasn't the most balanced panel, given that it includes one flack for Treasury Secretary Snow and another for Denny Hastert. But I didn't get into it <$Ad$> because I didn't know anything about Paul Guppy and the Washington Policy Center.
It seems, though, the benefit of the doubt I afforded them was entirely undeserved. TPM Reader DF points out that on their website the Washington Policy Center proudly quotes Jack Kemp calling them "the Heritage Foundation of the Northwest." So I think we can say with some confidence that Reichert's panel didn't include the full diversity of views on the future of Social Security.
In any case, this raises what I guess we might (with some puffery) call a methodological question for TPM. Reichert was one of the first members of the Conscience Caucus -- largely because in those early days all it took to get in was to express something short of clear support for the president's plan. And I've been reluctant to revisit earlier admissions on the basis of our evolving standards of conscience.
Clearly, though, Rep. Reichert is a first-class bamboozler because here he is still claiming that he hasn't made a decision on privatization and yet he puts together a panel where the participants range from think-tank supporters of phase-out to paid phase-out-onians from Treasury and the Speaker's office.
It's also true that the Conscience Caucus list doesn't fully capture the direction of the debate right now -- seeing as the great majority of Republican members of Congress express at least some bogus open-mindedness about the president's plan to keep on the right side of their constituents.
The real issue today is that fairly long list of Republican members of Congress who are managing (with their talking points in hand from party central) to dodge taking any position at all on the most important and contentious political question of the day: Social Security and whether or not to phase it out.
If that's not bad enough, you've got a bunch of them -- like Rep. Heather Wilson -- trying to trick their constituents into thinking they're against phase-out when actually they seem to be for it.
So we're going to put together a list of the top ten Social Security switch-hitters in Congress -- the ones who have put in the true bravura performances in their quest to keep their constituents entirely in the dark about where they stand on this issue. And unlike the Caucus and Faction lists, this one will have a limited membership and have members ranked in order of political ambidexterity and policy bi-positionality. Certainly, Rep. Heather Wilson (R) or New Mexico is first on the list. And Reichert is probably on their too.
But who else? We're taking nominations.
--Josh Marshall
A little while back I mentioned that a few days before I got married I was on a debate panel with Cato's Michael Tanner and Times columnist Paul Krugman debating Social Security privatization. It doesn't include video of the whole debate; but this video on the Democracy Now website has each of our opening statements: Tanner, Krugman, Marshall, in that order.
--Josh Marshall
March 31st is the day. In cities around the country, folks will be protesting Charles Schwab and Wachovia, the two big financial services firms still propping up the White House's pro-phase-out front groups. Click here to find out more.
--Josh Marshall
Ahhh ... A thing of beauty, the first signs of the intra-phase-out-camp free-fire zone.
Club for Growth loads up again and starts firing away at Sen. Lindsey Graham (R) of South Carolina for having the temerity to raise the possibility of raising the payroll tax cap to fund phase-out.
This press release out from Le Club bashes Graham for considering raising taxes rather than being a principled conservative and just borrowing the money.
--Josh Marshall
More information on those folks in Colorado who got booted from a Bamboozlepalooza event because of a bumper sticker on their car. It seems the planners of these taxpayer-funded events hire rent-a-cops, dress them up to look like Secret Service agents and then have them boot people who don't seem Bush-true.
See this post from Kos for more details.
--Josh Marshall
When astroturf bamboozlers don't do their advance work ...
Even temperatures nearing 70 degrees Monday didn't stop more than 80 people from gathering at the Iowa City Public Library to oppose Social Security reform proposals.Rep. Jim Leach, R-Iowa, hosted a community meeting for about two hours, with discussion primarily focused on fixing Social Security, although there were also questions about the Iraq war and the growing federal deficit.
...
"There is so little reality about the bill," said Ann Bovbjerg of Iowa City. "The most insulting is saying, 'you'll be OK (seniors), it's the younger generation who won't be.' Who are these younger people? They are your kids and my kids."
No one in attendance voiced support for the proposals that have been introduced by the president.
Note of thanks to <$NoAd$> TPM Reader BG.
--Josh Marshall
When does this become more than a joke?
The U.S. Secret Service on Monday said it was investigating the claims of three people who said they were removed from President Bush's town hall meeting on Social Security last week after being singled out because of a bumper sticker on their car.The three said they had obtained tickets through the office of Rep. Bob Beauprez, R-Colo., had passed through security and were preparing to take their seats when they were approached by what they thought was a Secret Service agent who asked them to leave.
Reports like this have become commonplace <$NoAd$> on the Bamboozlepalooza Tour. And, remember, despite the obvious political campaign content, this roadshow is paid for entirely with taxpayer dollars. That fact must make these sorts of ideological litmus tests a no-no.
--Josh Marshall
Decisions, decisions ...
Freshman Rep. Dave Reichert (R) of Washington state was either the first or second member of the Conscience Caucus. (That, bear in mind, was when the getting was good. You could get in just for expressing reservations about the president's plan.) And tonight in the district he's holding a townhall meeting on private accounts.
Reichert says he's undecided about the president's plan. But according to a February 9th piece in Roll Call says he "was the only Member in a targeted race to formally support the creation of private accounts."
So it might be interesting to ask the congressman just what it was that made him go all wobbly on privatization.
--Josh Marshall
Private Accounts Probabilism from the White House's Al Hubbard: "The president has made it clear that the personal retirement accounts won't solve the problem -- they are a part of the solution The rest of the solution lies in making other changes."
Interestingly enough, Hubbard's answer was in response to a high school student, eighteen-year-old Karl Kirsch. Hubbard went on to tell Kirsh that the options for the "other changes" include raising the retirement age and switching from wage- to price-indexing, which of course would leave our man Karl with radically reduced benefits fifty or so years from now.
When another questioner asked why AARP is opposing the plan if it's so great for seniors, Hubbard quoted the phony push-poll put together by the White House's pro-phase-out astroturf group, Compass. "We've seen polls that indicate two-thirds of the members in AARP support the president's plan. For whatever reason, they've determined this is a political battle that must be won."
A TPM 'Privatize This!' T-Shirt to the first guy or gal who can get Al Hubbard wired up to a lie detector and ask him whether he thinks 2/3rds of AARP members really support the president's plan.
Forget the T-Shirt, we'll whip up a special 'Privatize This!' tuxedo. With spats ...
--Josh Marshall
Almost parody. From a 1999 article in the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette ...
A Virginia jury last night awarded the wife of Sen. Rick Santorum $350,000 in damages after she charged in a lawsuit that a Virginia chiropracter's negligence caused her permanent back pain.Deliberating more then six hours after a four-day trial in which Santorum, R-Pa., testified, the Fairfax County Circuit Court jury unanimously ruled for Karen Santorum. She had sought $500,000 against Dr. David Dolberg of Virginia, because of pain from his 1996 treatment of her.
"Mrs. Santorum has been vindicated," said her Pittsburgh attorney Heather Heidelbaugh. "She was injured permanently through the actions of a chiropractor who acted negligently."
Heidelbaugh, with the Pittsburgh law firm of Burns, White & Hickton, said Mrs. Santorum has "permanent back pain" and "permanent numbness" in one leg.
Throughout the trial, Santorum aides declined to provide details. Yesterday, they issued a brief statement from the senator saying: "The court proceedings are a personal family matter. I will not be offering any further public comments, other than that I am not a party to the suit. But I am fully supportive of my wife."
But Roll Call, a newspaper that covers Capitol Hill, reported that Santorum testified Monday that his wife might not be able to actively campaign for his re-election next year because of her pain. "She has always been intricately involved in my campaigns," he testified.
This I found out about<$NoAd$> from MKV.
--Josh Marshall
Eagle-eyed TPM Reader AA sends us the news: Bamboozlepalooza swirls into Iowa on Wednesday. The president will be holding "A Conversation on Strengthening Social Security" at 12:15 p.m. at Kirkwood Community College in Cedar Rapids.
--Josh Marshall
Examples of what's considered standard-operating-procedure in the DC lobbying culture?
Take Brad Card, brother of White House Chief of Staff Andy Card and brother-in-law of another Bush family retainer, Ron Kaufman.
Not too long ago, Card was making an honest wage as a New Hampshire state trooper. Most of the ten years he put in with the force in the Granite State, he was an undercover narcotics officer. Not long after he got his badge, a September 1989 Union Leader article chronicled his bust of a two kids from New Jersey bringing a couple thousand dollars of weed into the state where they want to live free or die.
But the last few years have opened up all sorts of new opportunities for Card.
Just about the time George W. was shifting into high gear in the 2000 presidential race, for instance, Rep. John Sweeney (R) of New York tapped Brad to be his new Chief of Staff. But just after President Bush's inauguration and brother Andy's appointment as White House Chief of Staff, the folks at The Dutko Group, a DC lobbying shop, could see Brad's unique talents and they hired him away from Sweeney.
Perhaps they reached out to him through his brother-in-law, Ron Kauffman, since he works at Dutko too. Who knows?
In any case, it was a good thing that Card got a few months experience in the luxe lobbying business before 9/11. Because about six weeks after the towers fell, New York real estate developer Larry Silverstein needed a man in Washington to tell his story to powers-that-be in the nation's capital. And he had quite a story to tell, seeing as he'd taken out the lease on the World Trade Center not long before they were destroyed.
Silverstein, being the shrewd man that he is, hired Card to be that man in Washington in his titanic struggle to see how many billions in insurance money he would be able to collect from the towers' destruction.
Perhaps it was Card's law enforcement background that made him so valuable to Silverstein. But then, terrorism isn't a law enforcement matter. So it's hard to know what to think.
--Josh Marshall
Standard & Poor's, another anti-market lobby, says private accounts involve more risk than gain.
--Josh Marshall
I just noticed this update at the MSNBC website, predicting rough-sledding for UN Secretary General Kofi Annan because his son made several hundred thousand dollars consulting for a company angling Iraq oil-for-food contracts. The fact is supposed to be made public tomorrow in an interim report issued by Paul Volcker, the man Annan appointed to investigate the program.
The piece also quotes copiously from administration officials who argue that Annan must have knowingly ignored that his son was trading on his name. "How do you not know that your son is making all this money? How do you not know that your son is pushing Cotecna [the company in question] in meetings."
Perhaps I'm the only one. But when I was reading this I couldn't help but notice that what the administration officials appear to be describing is considered to be standard acceptable practice in Washington lobbying culture.
What am I missing?
--Josh Marshall
Combining environmental ethics and public entertainment, the Center for American Progress's ThinkProgress blog recycles noxious RNC pro-phase-out lies into usable, productive humor.
--Josh Marshall
More material on the never-ending-decline of CNN. This is the text from the front page of the site, as of 12:11 AM on the east coast ...
A representative of the parents of Terri Schiavo said Sunday last-ditch appeals will be made in Washington to get the brain-damaged woman's feeding tube reinserted. After a news conference announcing the plan, a woman, saying she was from the Revolutionary Communist Youth Brigades, grabbed the microphone to say Terri Schiavo should be allowed to die in peace.
Nope. Not The Onion, CNN.
I'm not sure I can stay up late enough to see their report on sword-swallowing privatizers or the preview of the new CNN Presents documentary on the man raised from infancy by a pack of lizards and his brave struggle to adjust to life among humans.
--Josh Marshall
Reader mail ...
I am a public employee in California. For 16 years I worked at UCLA, and for nearly 17 years I have worked for LA Superior Court. Not only is Arnold trying to change the State pension system, his proposals include every pension system covering public employees, from the State to cities and counties, to school districts, to water districts, etc. We are all under attack. Information from my Union shows that LACERA, Los Angeles County Employees Retirement Association, gets 75% of its funding from dividends, about 12% from the County, and the rest from employees. My University of California pension is coordinated with Social Security. So basically, both my pensions and Social Security are being held hostage by the Republican party. This is a horror story for my family. What we thought would be a good retirement for us may collapse as Arnold wants the end of all funding for public employee pensions by 2006. I have money invested for retirement, that is my deferred compensation which could tank any time. I really am glad to see you put this on your blog for the rest of the country to see. And if Arnold wins in California, no state will be safe from the Republican plan to repeal the 20th century and promises made to employees. I would love to move out of the country now. Thank you for publicizing this.SB
Posted without <$NoAd$>comment.
--Josh Marshall
Sen. Chuck Grassley (R) of Iowa on Social Security privatization: "I think it's very difficult for me to say today that we'll present a bill to the president."
Grassley is Chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, the committee charged with putting together a phase-out bill.
--Josh Marshall
Third-string Bamboozlepalooza: Commerce Secretary Gutierrez talks up Social Security phase-out in Little Rock.
--Josh Marshall
I haven't paid as much attention as I should to the political struggle brewing in California -- though that is where I grew up (1975-1987). This article by Dan Balz in tomorrow's Washington Post paints a revealing picture of just how much Gov. Schwarzenegger (R) has embraced both the policies and the confrontational style of President Bush.
--Josh Marshall
A family-wide <$NoAd$>problem ...
At the same time one of Florida's most visible television reporters brought the news to viewers around the state, he earned hundreds of thousands of dollars on the side from the government agencies he covered.Mike Vasilinda, a 30-year veteran of the Tallahassee press corps, does public relations work and provides film editing services to more than a dozen state agencies.
His Tallahassee company, Mike Vasilinda Productions Inc., has earned more than $100,000 over the past four years through contracts with Gov. Jeb Bush's office, the Secretary of State, the Department of Education and other government entities that are routinely part of Vasilinda's stories.
See the rest from the Herald-Tribune.
--Josh Marshall
