Opinions, Context & Ideas from the TPM Editors TPM Editor's Blog

The Times and the

The Times and the Post weigh in with the backstory on the repeal of the DeLay Rule. It seems they could see they weren't going to be able to keep their troops in line tomorrow after so many of them had gotten an earful from their constituents. (Sort of a stampede to get into the Shays Handful, it seems.) Perhaps that sobriquet change really is in order.

As you know Rep.

As you know, Rep. Allen Boyd of Florida is now the interim <$NoAd$> Dean of the Fainthearted Faction, pending more information about Rep. Jim Moran's weaseling on the issue. And today we got a hold of the Annual Report he just sent out to constituents.

Of particular interest to the TPM research department was this section (click the link to see a image of the section) updating voters on his stand on Social Security. What caught our attention was the 2nd and 3rd "basic tenets" which he says will inform his decision-making ...

Second, there must continue to be a guaranteed benefit that ensures no retiree falls below the poverty level, and third any proposal must be fiscally responsible and not rely on smoke and mirrors to disguise the true cost of saving the system.

Now, first off, does Rep. Boyd really mean that under any new plan Social Security must maintain a "guaranteed benefit" that prevents any retiree from falling below the poverty line? And look at tenet three. Any proposal "must be fiscally responsible." Can any proposal that requires $2 trillion in additional borrowing on top of our existing problem with accumulating national indebtedness be "fiscally responsible"?

I believe the Kolbe bill, which Boyd has signed on to as a co-sponsor, envisions a mix of borrowing, increased payroll taxes (raising the 'cap') and benefit cuts to manage transition costs. So it's probably time for someone to take a close look at the Kolbe bill to see if there's any way Rep. Boyd can square it with his 'tenets'.

Oh the Agony of

Oh, the Agony of Defeat! And DeLay <$NoAd$> too!

Just below you'll see our post on the new batch of Ethics Panel evisceration rules the House Republicans were slated to push through tomorrow. And we were about to report how House Dems were readying to put the Republicans on the hotseat -- particularly the Shays Handful -- by forcing a vote on the DeLay Rule itself.

And now this comes across the AP Wire ...

House Republicans suddenly reversed course Monday, deciding to retain a tough standard for lawmaker discipline and reinstate a rule that would force Majority Leader Tom DeLay to step aside if indicted by a Texas grand jury.

The surprise dual decisions were made by Speaker Dennis Hastert and by DeLay — who asked GOP colleagues to undo the extreme act of loyalty they handed him in November. Then, Republicans changed a party rule so DeLay could retain his leadership post if indicted by the grand jury in Austin that charged three of the Texas Republican's associates.

So the DeLay Rule is no more? Can The Hammer remain The Hammer after such an ignominious climb-down? Perhaps, we should be thinking more along the lines of The Mallet? And after all the trouble of getting Republican bankbenchers to walk the plank in support of the thing? We've put some good bit of time into putting together our gallery of DeLay Rule Letter-Writer letters to constituents with all their mannered and far-fetched explanations for why they voted for the thing. And now this? The rug is pulled out of under them?

Oh the humanity ...

With the recent run

With the recent run of ethical abuses by members of the House of Representatives, you'd probably expect that there would be some sort of crackdown. But you'd have to be familiar with the current make-up of the House to suspect that the crackdown would be on the Ethics Committee rather than the body's various malefactors.

First there was the DeLay Rule. This one amounts to a whole Tom DeLay Protection Act of 2005.

Let's get down to details.

As the Washington Post noted last Friday, House Republicans are planning to begin the new session of Congress tomorrow with a wholesale weakening of the ethics rules that govern the House. Perhaps the most important one is the removal of the rule that members of the House "shall conduct himself at all times in a manner that shall reflect creditably on the House."

The rule change was proposed to the House Rules Committee by Reps. Lamar Smith of Texas and Dave Camp of Michigan. Both loyal DeLay soldiers, Smith is a DeLay right-hand-man from back home, who says the "The [current] rules benefit the aggressors who file complaints."

As the Post noted, this provision is that which "has been used to discipline members for taking bribes, fixing parking tickets and having sex with House pages." In other words, it's the rule that covers all the various sorts of sleaze that aren't specifically enumerated in the House code -- sort of the inverse of the constitution's 'necessary and proper' clause. (After all, wouldn't it be fun to have the House ethics code says 1a. Members shall not fornicate with House pages. 1b. Members shall not give a C note to House staff to ignore visits to office by call-girls ...' You get the idea.) You might just call it the Sleaze Rule.

Perhaps more to the point, it formed the basis of the Ethics Committee's multiple 'admonishments' last year of Tom DeLay.

The GOP caucus could see as well as anyone that something had to be wrong when the Majority Leader was cited again and again for unethical behavior. So in characteristic form, they repealed the rule under which he was cited.

One person who thinks this is a bad idea is Joel Hefley of Colorado, the Chairman of the Ethics Committee and perhaps better known to you as a member of the Shays Handful.

According to this morning's CQ Today, he's told aides he opposes the changes -- particularly that to the aforementioned Sleaze Rule -- plans to speak out against the change tomorrow on the House floor before the change comes to a vote. And he said the following in a written statement: "This is not the way to effect meaningful reform. Ethics reform must be bipartisan and this package is not bipartisan. If the House is to have a meaningful, bipartisan ethics process, changes of this magnitude can be made - as they were made in 1997 and 1989 - only after thoughtful, careful consideration on a bipartisan basis."

And with a statement like that, as you might expect, ol' man Helfey probably ain't long for the Chairmanship. Reportedly he's about to be canned by Speaker Hastert and replaced by ... who? ... you guessed it, Lamar Smith.

Is Chris Shays going to have his hands full on this one too? Tune in to C-Span tomorrow. They're not allowed to have this one behind closed doors.

Bless their hearts. The

Bless their hearts. The Times states the facts correctly: "Starting last year, as the groundwork was being set for the emerging debate, the Social Security trustees took the liberty of projecting the system's solvency over infinity, rather than sticking to the traditional 75-year time horizon. That world-without-end assumption generates the scary $10 trillion estimate, and with it, Mr. Bush's putative rationale for dismantling Social Security in favor of a system centered on private savings accounts."

The whole editorial is well worth your reading.

What follows also tells an important part of the story ...

The American Academy of Actuaries, the profession's premier trade association, objected to the change. In a letter to the trustees, the actuaries wrote that infinite projections provide "little if any useful information about the program's long-range finances and indeed are likely to mislead any [nonexpert] into believing that the program is in far worse financial condition than is actually indicated."

As it often does with dissenting professional opinion, the administration is ignoring the actuaries. But that doesn't alter the facts or common sense. If the $10 trillion figure is essentially bogus, so is the claim that Social Security is in crisis. The assertion that doing nothing would be costlier than enacting a privatization plan also turns out to be wrong, by the estimates of Congress's own budget agency.

I wouldn't imagine that the American Academy of Actuaries annual convention would be the one you'd want to go to for the most rockin' parties. But presumably this is a topic they know something about.

As pretty much all

As pretty much all the sensible articles on Social Security have made clear, to the extent that we have a problem, it is not a Social Security problem, but an accumulated national debt problem. And this isn't just a looking at one side or the other of the coin issue, but a category difference.

There are various ways to illustrate this point. But the following, I think, is the best.

The United States has a bit over $7 trillion in accumulated national debt. You can say that's been built up over the history of the country. But overwhelmingly it was borrowed over what happens to be the span of my lifetime -- the last thirty-five years -- and especially over the last twenty-five years.

After 1980 we started borrowing money big-time to finance our deficits -- in large part because of tax cuts on high-income earners. However you want to slice it, we started spending substantially more than we were taking in in tax revenue.

So where'd we borrow the money?

This is from memory, so I may have the numbers a bit off. But I believe about $4 trillion of that debt was borrowed on the open market -- individual Americans have them in their investment portfolios, or pension funds hold them, or the Chinese, Japanese and the Saudis and others have them in bonds.

But about $3 trillion of those dollars we needed to fund the 1980s and 1990s deficits we managed to borrow closer to home. We borrowed it from the Social Security (and a few other government) trust fund(s).

Almost the entirety of President Bush's Social Security phase-out plan comes down to a simple proposition: finding out how not to pay it back.

Now, admittedly, this is an approach that the president is rather familiar with from his own business career at various failed energy companies. But it is, in so many words, a straight up con -- one of vast scale, and one which virtually no one in the media ever frames in just these terms.

Before discussing that aspect of the question, consider a hypothetical. Let's say there'd not been a Social Security -- President Bush's dreamworld. We'd still have had the same deficits. The difference would be that we'd have had to borrow from private borrowers in the US and abroad.

Think we'd just be able to decide not to pay them back? Not likely. The Joneses and the Smiths with their 401ks probably wouldn't like that. And the Japanese and Saudis probably wouldn't like it much either. Of course, defaulting on our entire national debt would also certainly trigger a seismic international financial crisis. So you can probably figure that no one would be a huge fan of it.

So why does the president figure he can get away without making good on the debt to the folks who pay Social Security taxes, who are overwhelmingly low and middle-income wage earners (since no one pays Social Security tax on investment income or wage and salary income over about $85,000 a year)?

Isn't it obvious? Because he thinks they're an easy mark.

If anything, the fact that a sizeable portion of our huge national debt is owed (in the aggregate) to ourselves would seem to be a good thing since it gives us in extremis at least some flexibility on repayment. But to the president this is a reason to abolish Social Security so the money doesn't have to be paid back at all.

As I said at the beginning of this post, the challenges we face over the next several decades aren't really Social Security problems but national indebtedness problems, though the issues are clearly related.

One obvious and immediate way to relieve long-term pressures on Social Security financing is to reduce the national debt ... by ending our habit of running huge annual deficits or even better by paying down some of our accumulated debt (there are complicated macro-economic questions related to this second point; but in general it's correct.)

But what has President Bush done? He's presided over the biggest fiscal turnaround in American history, taking the country from modest annual surpluses to the biggest deficits -- at least in non-adjusted dollar terms -- in American history. And that's only one reason why you can make a decent argument that President Bush has done more than any other president and perhaps any other single American ever to endanger Social Security's future.

Across the board, it's just one big scam.

The guy who's the biggest threat to Social Security says he wants to 'save' it by abolishing the program and replacing it with private accounts.

A grievous blow Rep.

A grievous blow: Rep. Bob Matsui, 26 year veteran of the House, a one-time Japanese-American internee during World War II and now the Dems point-man on Social Security, has died at the age of 63.

According to this late wire story, he was diagnosed "several months ago with [Myelodysplastic] Disorder, a rare stem cell disorder that reduces the body's ability to produce red blood cells, white blood cells and platelets. Victims of the disease are left more susceptible to other illnesses, with less ability to fight them off."

He entered the hospital on Christmas Eve and died last night.

I met Matsui last year at a dinner party in Washington. And then we got together for breakfast on Capitol Hill a few weeks later to talk about politics, the election and new media activism. This was a sharp, kind, warmhearted and unpretentious man. As I said, a grievous blow. He will be sorely missed.

Here is a link to the announcement of his death on his congressional website.

One of the lines

One of the lines you'll hear again and again from supporters of phasing out Social Security is, 'Well, what possible problem could you have with letting people decide what they do with their own money? You think they're not smart enough? They can't be trusted?'

People who make this argument seem to have forgotten that -- the efforts of some malefactors notwithstanding -- we live in a democracy. They are deciding and will be for most of the next two years.

I have little doubt that if the American people decide that they don't like the Social Security program and would like to replace it with a system of 401-k like private investment accounts, that they'll do it. Certainly, if that's their choice, they'll have the help of the president, all his big financial backers and the leadership of the majority party in both houses of Congress in putting their judgment into effect. So I somehow doubt the popular will would be thwarted in any way.

The truth is that it's the president, more than anyone else, who doesn't trust people to decide what to do with their own money and their own futures. If he did, he wouldn't be lying to them so much about Social Security. He'd be arguing for his phase-out plan on the merits.

George W. Bush being

George W. Bush, being more truthful than he probably intended. From the Post ...

"Many times, legislative bodies will not react unless the crisis is . . . upon them," Bush warned Congress at a news conference late December. "I believe that crisis is [upon them]."

Many times you cannot pull off a big con, saith the ancient proverb, unless you telleth a lot of lies to the folks you're trying to swindle.