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

At the moment for

At the moment, for all to see, the president doesn't have the numbers in Congress to move any phase-out bill. He's got only one Democrat clearly on his side -- the poltroonish Allen Boyd -- and at least a couple dozen Republicans who aren't ready to phase out Social Security.

So Tuesday he tried <$Ad$> another approach: going directly to local press in critical districts and states around the country, trying to sell phase-out. The president sat down for an hour long group interview in the Oval Office with reporters from regional papers, each from areas with high concentrations of retirees. They included the Tennessean (Nashville), the Orange County Register, the South Florida Sun-Sentinel (Fort Lauderdale), the Birmingham News (Alabama) and the New Haven Register.

(Note that the president is having real problems with Republicans in Tennessee and Alabama.

Another target was Iowa. When asked about benefit cuts, according to the Times reporter from the Quad City Times, President Bush "appeared to suggest ... that the scheduled rate of increase in Social Security benefits is not in step with reality."

This is the coming tactic, which has already been the focus of a lot of press push-back, to simply say that the current scheduled benefit rates are impossible or can't really happen. Thus reducing benefits from those which can't really happen doesn't count as 'cuts'.

Here's how the Quad City Times reporter described that exchange in his follow-up report ...

“Benefit cuts is an interesting word,” Bush said. “Benefits are scheduled to grow at a certain rate, and one of the, one of the suggestions, for example ... was they grow at a, they grow, but not at a rate as fast as projected. You can call it anything you want. I would call it an adjustment to reality,” he said.

The president stressed, though, that he was not expressing a preference for what a Social Security package might include.

“This is one of the many suggestions that people have made,” he said. “I don’t want you to walk away thinking that I am picking one part of the solution mix or not. I’m not.”


Another reporter in the session, William Gibson of the South Florida Sun-Sentinel, had this take on what the president said ...

Bush said the current system cannot be sustained, and he implied that benefits in the traditional program will have to be scaled back for those born after 1950.

"One of the suggestions, for example, is that they grow but not at a rate as fast as projected," he said. "You can call it anything you want. I would call it an adjustment to reality."


So, big benefit cuts if you're born after 1950 under the president's "adjustment to reality."

One of the big questions about the president's 'over 55 and you're safe' promise is how he can guarantee that when many of those people will be alive thirty or even forty years from now and he wants to pull lots of money out of the system.

Here was his stab at that: "I don't know how you guarantee (benefits for) somebody 30 years from now, but I mean, that is obviously a promise that can be kept and must be kept. When it's all said and done, we'll have to show people how the Social Security system is solvent. Once we can show solvency as a result of a permanent fix, I think people will be more comfortable that the promise will be kept."

Some reporters of course were a bit more fawning than others. The reporter from the Orange County Register, for instance, seemed rather easier to impress. "His brows narrowed and his tone was resolute," writes Dena Bunis, "when he talked about his determination to get this issue resolved during his presidency."

Each of these pieces were distributed widely over the wires.

More to follow ...

As Drudge says tonight

As Drudge says tonight, those three CBS execs whose resignations were requested -- they were never received. And why should they tender them? When you're hung out to dry, why go easily if the people hanging you out have dirty hangs too?

Were the highest level people at CBS really not deeply involved in the digging in of heels phase of that whole fiasco? Even after it was clear that the network's reputation was on the line? They didn't get involved? Hard to figure.

I dont know enough

I don't know enough yet about the probable suspects behind the Hariri assassination in Lebanon or the precise geopolitical situation that surrounded it. Nor have I had a chance yet to talk to the people whose judgment I trust about this. And given where the pieces were on the chessboard, Damascus or friends of Damascus are certainly under a cloud of suspicion. But it is more than a little unfortunate that I at least find it hard to take at face value anything this administration says about the probable perpetrators. And again, I say that not with any particular knowledge of this situation, but simply on the basis of the track record and the region of the world.

Who will run against

Who will run against this meddlesome congressman?

The St. Petersburg Times profiles the Dean of the Fainthearted Faction, Rep. Allen Boyd (D) of Florida.

I usually think of

I usually think of the Boston Globe as a white hat paper. But certainly not here. They appear to have published one of that unfortunate class of columns in which a non-Jewish scribe tosses around the charge of anti-Semitism as though it were no more than one more ideological brickbat or cudgel to be used -- seemingly absent any real knowledge of the issues being discussed -- in the never-ending pundit street fight. Here Eric Alterman discusses his futile attempts to get the Globe to allow him to respond on the merits to a foolish and shameful column they published which accused him of being an anti-Semite.

With any luck or

With any luck, or if I can resist <$NoAd$> the temptation, the blogging will be a little lighter today. I think I've finally gotten a handle on a book review I've been working on fitfully for a couple months and now more intensively over the last few weeks. So I'm going to be getting into the writing of that. And I'm going to do a radio segment this afternoon. But mainly, I'm not too modest to say that today is my 36th birthday and I'm going to take some time to enjoy it. First, with one of the long leisurely walks with my dog, Simon, which seem to be one of his prime joys in life. And now mine too, I guess. That and a good cigar I've saved for the day, which a long walk affords an opportunity to enjoy.

A few other matters of customary business.

With all the site's readers contacting their senators and reps and being so aggressively civic, I am chagrined to say that until a few days ago I hadn't gotten around to figuring out who represents me. Living in DC for half a decade you get used to having no representatives at all. And I've only lived here for eight weeks or so. Still, I didn't know.

It turns out that it's Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D) who represents the 8th District of New York. I don't figure him for much of a phase-out man. So I doubt we'll be fielding many letters on his position on Social Security. But there it is.

As for Heather Wilson (R) of New Mexico, it was a tough call whether she makes her way into the Caucus. So I got in touch yesterday with the outside judge who sometimes helps me with the really difficult calls. His feeling was that she doesn't belong in since he figures she's been cagey about her position for so many years because she really does support phasing out Social Security. She's just wary of saying it, fearing the political backlash.

I noted though that in running the Caucus we've had to flesh out a quite detailed and fine-grained taxonomy of weaseltude. And the FIW ("Finger in the Wind") category is designed specifically for her form of weaseling -- the fancy footwork of reps like Rep. Wilson who are signaling resistance but will go whichever way the wind blows or expediency or patronage dictates in the final analysis.

With that in mind and on the basis of the 'Coleman Surmise' (see the excerpted paragraph in this post from yesterday that begins 'Ok') we're slotting her in, though only barely and with a close watch on subsequent weaseling.

We've also got some interesting information coming about ambassadorships in East Asia, an old interest of mine. So all that soon.

House Conscience Caucus Dean

House Conscience Caucus Dean Emerson refuses to logroll away her opposition to privatization. "She said her constituents have strongly voiced their opposition to privatizing the system," reports The Hill.

Next stop on the

Next stop on the Bamboozlepalooza Tour: New Hamphsire, where the Union Leader reports that 32% support private accounts and 54% oppose them.

The Times-Picayune on the

The Times-Picayune on the McCrery Waffle ...

McCrery has change of heart

Rep. Jim McCrery, R-Shreveport, who had been publicly skeptical of President Bush's approach to overhauling Social Security, pronounced himself sold last week after a White House meeting. "Frankly, I had not thought of the policy rationale they described yesterday," McCrery said Wednesday after huddling with Allan Hubbard, director of the White House National Economic Council. The comments were something of a turnabout for McCrery and evidence of the administration's interest in lassoing strays from the Republican herd. McCrery joins the president in supporting the idea of private accounts, but he has been publicly wary of the chances of Bush's plan to allow Americans to create them by diverting their payroll taxes. McCrery has said he leans toward another approach for financing the accounts, such as through tax overhaul or more government borrowing. Ten days ago, he warned that the president's plan would give naysayers, such as AARP and most Democrats, a powerful line of attack because it takes resources from the Social Security trust fund. Now it appears McCrery is on board. "I'm convinced the president's approach is worth pursuing in the legislative process," he said after the White House meeting.


Flippity <$NoAd$>floppity.

LiveWire