Did Rep. Allen Boyd, the Panhandle Poltroon, get the memo?
The Dean of the Fainthearted Faction (Actually through a special motion, Boyd is now Dean of both the House and Senate Factions, because of his profound Faintheartedness) has been telling his constituents that he's for private accounts because it's the only responsible thing to do to make sure Social Security remains solvent for future generations.
"Keeping this vital program intact," he said last week, "for those who depend on it today and in the future, is a commitment I will not ignore."
But yesterday, the cosponsor of his own bill, Rep. Jim Kolbe (R) told the Arizona Republic that "Personal accounts don't solve the problem. I've never argued they solve the problem."
Kolbe went on to tell them that private accounts are essentially a sweetener to get younger workers to go along with big benefit cuts. As Kolbe put it to a hypothetical young worker: "Look, sorry your benefits are going to be cut in the future and you're going to be paying more taxes to support this system, but there is something in it for you."
We were also interested to see that Boyd apparently told the Wall Street Journal that he "opposes big borrowing" to make things right with Social Security. But even Kolbe says their plan costs $600 billion. Actually, $1.1 trillion, but they say they get $500 billion back.
Our man Boyd, always the last to know.
By the way, any progress on getting someone to run against this guy?
Another entry for the Wisdom of Katherine Harris anthology.
This from the AP, Harris talking about President Bush at the Bamboozlepalooza event in Tampa ...
One of those in attendance, Rep. Katherine Harris, R-Fla., quoted the president as saying he recognized the political difficulty involved in tackling such legislation. "He said this is hard.... But he said it's not as hard as sending young men and women off to war," she said.
Blessed are we that TPM has readers like TPM Reader DP who calls our attention to this hilarious passage in the Hastert interview in the Tribune ...
"You're going to have less money coming in than goes out and indeed, that's a crisis point, that's a problem we have to address," [Hastert] said, calling the program "a Ponzi scheme," but quickly adding that he did not mean it in derogatory way.
Rep. Chris Shays (R) of Connecticut is very much in the president's handful on phasing out Social Security. Here's a Charlie Cook article that discusses Diane Farrell and whether she'll decide to challenge Shays again in 2006.
Farrell held Shays to 52% of the vote last November. And as Cook rightly notes, "despite her 2004 loss, Farrell is one of the strongest challengers her party could field in 2006."
Here's Farrell's campaign website from last cycle. And here's her bio.
Financial services industry types notwithstanding, how popular is phase-out in Connecticut? How about in Bridgeport? And in any case, most people who really understand and respect financial markets realize this is a lousy idea anyway. After all, Bob Rubin and John Corzine are both on the right side. And I hear Goldman does some financial services work.
Speaker Denny Hastert (R) of Illinois: "You can't jam change down the American people's throat."
That and more in the Chicago Tribune's interview with Hastert and his discussion of the problems the president is having selling phase-out to congressional Republicans and the American people.
A stumble after a run of good Social Security news articles from the Post.
On A3 today, Michael Fletcher discusses the part of the president's pitch in which he argues that shorter lifespans make Social Security a bad deal or unfair to African-Americans.
Down into the piece Fletcher mentions some of the key critiques of this argument -- the disproportionate benefit African-Americans get from the survivors' and disability portions of Social Security, as well as the program's progressive benefit structure, which also gives a disproportionate benefit to people with low-incomes.
What goes wholly unmentioned is that the way lifespan statistics are used in this argument is inherently misleading.
African-Americans have substantially shorter lifespans than whites -- a fact the president seems concerned about primarily, or perhaps exclusively, as an argument for phasing out Social Security. The argument being that African-Americans don't have as many benefit-collecting years as whites and thus get a worse 'rate of return' on their payroll contributions.
The problem with this argument is that most of the difference in lifespan is tied to death in childhood and early adulthood -- before people have any ability to pay substantial amounts into Social Security and at ages when Social Security survivor benefits are particularly important.
(The issue is discussed in this Paul Krugman column from January 28th.)
This fact receives no mention in the Post article.
Rep. Rick Renzi (R) of Arizona: "We need to know how we can fund it. I'm going to wait and see how we balance the budget and fix Social Security before committing to his plan to create private accounts."
Only just barely; but that gets him into the Conscience Caucus.
The New York Times has one of the first mainstream news pieces I've seen about 'Jeff Gannon' that takes the issue seriously as a hard news story rather than just a 'media story' or a bias piece.
Of particular interest, to me at least, is just how 'Gannon' managed to have access to classified documents relating to the Plame matter. It's not uncommon for journalists to get hold of classified materials. But given the dynamics of that story and how much the White House was gunning for Wilson, it's awfully odd that he would have had this stuff come into his hands for what could at all be called journalistic reasons.
Given all these questions about credentialing and pseudonyms, I'm also curious how 'Gannon' was credentialed at the Republican National Convention, though the RNC certainly has every right to credential whomever they choose, with whatever name they want to go by.
As fate would have it, I sat next to him in the press stands during President Bush's convention speech last September.
I didn't know who he was; he didn't know who I was. And that was probably a good thing all around. (I only found out his story when I looked him up later on the web, after what ended up happening; my recollection is that he gave me his card.) But that didn't stop it from being a surreal experience. Through some sort of double karmic inversion, the women sitting to my left -- 'Gannon', appropriately enough, was on my right ... God not only has a sense of humor, it seems; he is also well-organized -- turned out to be one of the protestors in the hall who lept to her feet mid-speech, tossed on a pink slip and began denouncing the president for about 1.32 seconds before being manhandled out of hall by some security guard who seemed to materialize out of nowhere.
I wrote about it that evening. The 'journalist' mentioned briefly at the end of the post is 'Gannon'.
(ed. note: If you're new to this story, this is the go-to blog.)
Social Security has always been considered the third rail of American politics. This year, President Bush as made it clear that the time has come for an honest, straightforward, and realistic discussion about its future.
I commend District 2 Congressman Allen Boyd for his conviction to stand up to those in his own political party and do what is right for the future of Social Security.
Yes, he is a Democrat and I am a Republican and the former chairman of the subcommittee on Social Security in Congress. In politics there is always a temptation to kick the can down the road and hope that problems might disappear. That is not how Congressman Boyd views his job.
He knows that the longer we wait to address the coming crisis, the more difficult and expensive the job will be down the line. So in this new term, along with Boyd's leadership, we will save Social Security for all time, and put it on a path to permanent solvency and stability.
We will need bipartisan commitment in the months ahead. Both parties will be tempted to use Social Security as a political football. Yet, we should all recognize that playing politics with Social Security is playing politics with the future of our children and our grandchildren.
CLAY SHAW U.S. Rep., R-Fort Lauderdale