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

As youve likely heard

As you've likely heard the president's rich friends are giving tons of cash for a big inaugural shindig, notwithstanding the fact that we're supposed to be at war. But look at this lede on the front page of today's Post ...

D.C. officials said yesterday that the Bush administration is refusing to reimburse the District for most of the costs associated with next week's inauguration, breaking with precedent and forcing the city to divert $11.9 million from homeland security projects.

Federal officials have told the District that it should cover the expenses by using some of the $240 million in federal homeland security grants it has received in the past three years -- money awarded to the city because it is among the places at highest risk of a terrorist attack.

It is supremely fitting that the celebration of a victory won by politicizing and hyping homeland security and terrorism ends up with this sort of <$NoAd$>funding problem.

Its still going to

It's still going to take us a bit longer to get our Social Security database up and running. So for now we've added this little box you see there on the right with links to the most up-to-date lists of the Fainthearted Faction as well as the Republicans' rapidly growing Conscience Caucus.

Look at this piece in tomorrow's Post on Republican resistance to the president's Social Security phase-out bill. The spark to the piece is Rep. Rob Simmons, a Republican from a pretty competitive district in eastern Connecticut, who says flat out that he's not going to vote for the president's bill.

More revealing is the fact that Republicans themselves, according to the Post, estimate that between 15 and 40 members of their House caucus agree with Simmons. And note Bill Kristol's also sounding a note of opposition, both on the politics and even the substance of the president's plan.

As several other blogs

As several other blogs have already done, I really recommend reading this piece in the New Republic about how the laws that are meant to protect the right to organize in this country are increasingly going unenforced or feebly enforced and how that is having ill effects throughout our society and economy.

From the Post Rep.

From the Post: "Rep. [Rob]Simmons [of Connecticut] said there is no way he will support Bush's idea of allowing younger Americans to divert some of their payroll taxes into private accounts, especially when there are more pressing needs, such as shoring up Medicare and providing armor to U.S. troops in Iraq."

It sounds like President Bush doesn't have Rep. Simmons' vote. Add him to the list.

Just a quick update

Just a quick update on our Social Security 'where do they stand' database. We had an unforeseen delay on the tech end of the operation. But now we're back underway and we should have the database up and online in the not-too-distant future. For those of you who've written in and offered to volunteer your time, we'll be in touch with you shortly.

As you can imagine

As you can imagine, nothing <$Ad$>brings tears of joy to the TPM family more than striking a representative or senator from the rolls of the Fainthearted Faction. In fact, I'm tempted to say talk amongst yourselves, while I take a moment. But I'll press on.

As we said earlier, Rep. Jim Moran of Virginia is out of the Fainthearted Faction. And out with a bang, it turns out.

You can read the constituent letter he's now sending out here (the key passage is on page two).

But the key passage is this one (emphasis in the original) ...

Information to date suggests that the reform proposal supported by the President would finace ISA's [i.e., private accounts] by diverting a portion of the payroll taxes now paid into Social Security. I will oppose any such plan and encourage my colleagues to do the same.

If you have a moment, read the letter itself. It provides a detailed discussion of the policy issues involved, and in one passage even a rather stirring description of what Social Security is and why it's so important.

And if you're one of Rep. Moran's constituents and you think the battle to defend Social Security from the president's phase-out plan is an important one, maybe drop him a line and tell him you appreciate his stand.

Say it aint so

Say it ain't so! Sen. Landrieu in the Faction. "I’m not saying absolutely, positively ‘no’ to private accounts," she told CQ last <$NoAd$> week.

Could Hillary be next?

The same article says the following ...

Advocates for personal accounts see a small possibility of winning the support of Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y. Her husband studied the idea while president and has since made public statements suggesting he supports the principle. Sen. Clinton has not publicly wedded herself to either side of the debate. Her office did not respond to requests for comment Friday.

I think that misstates President Clinton's post-presidency statements on Social Security. But however that may be, Hillary hasn't made up her mind? No comment?

Late Update: The email Sen. Clinton is sending out to constituents does seem to suggest she'll oppose the president's phase-out plan. And, myself, I'd be stunned if she ended up voting with the president. But CQ still has her down as a possible.

We thought Blanche Lincoln

We thought Blanche Lincoln had left the Fainthearted Faction. <$NoAd$>But it seems like she's not quite ready to give up her membership card after all.

This from the Associated Press today ...

As the Bush Administration readies to bring Social Security to the forefront, U.S. Sen. Blanche Lincoln said that she doesn't support allowing the system's dollars to be invested in private accounts.

"I do not think you can divert payroll taxes into private investment accounts," Lincoln said. "It jeopardizes the solvency of the program for current retirees."

However, Arkansas' senior senator also said that she is not shutting out the idea entirely because that, "is not being fair to the problem."

Blanche Lincoln: Iffy on Social Security, but fair to the problem? Why do Democrats in the Fainthearted Faction feel it necessary to be fair to a policy choice they claim already to have decided is a bad idea?

More on the WaPos

More on the WaPo's Social Security myopia.

Yesterday we noted the Post's Social Security editorial in which the well-heeled Posties agreed that deep cuts in benefits were surely a good thing and that ...

If workers aren't happy with a pension that, while generous in relation to the living standards of their younger years, feels stingy in relation to their earnings immediately before retirement, they can, if not in the lower brackets, save privately to supplement their Social Security benefit; if healthy, they also can postpone retirement.

This editorial is the sort of historical document <$Ad$>that makes you want to go back and reread each of Mike Lind's books from the early 1990s about politics and political economy -- which is always a good thing to do in any case. But for the moment let's go back to the editorial board's myopia.

The authors observe that recipients, instead of whining about the cuts, should simply save more on their own -- as long as they're "not in the lower brackets."

Now, there aren't that many tax brackets. In fact, if memory serves there are now six federal tax brackets -- 10%, 15%, 25%, 28% 33% and 35%. For next year, the upper three brackets are for joint-filing couples making making $120,000 a year and up and individuals who make over $72,000.

By inference, this must be the class of whiners the Post is addressing since these are the folks who are "not in the lower brackets." Does the Post really think that these high-income earners are the folks this debate is about? Or the folks for whom Social Security represents a critical component of their retirement security?

Later, the editorialists argue that the "poor" should receive unspecified "special protections" from the benefit cutting.

But does anybody seem like they're left out of this picture? Right, the overwhelming majority of Americans in those lower three brackets who spend their lifetimes making middle-class wages -- Bill Clinton's folks who 'work hard and play by the rules.'

They aren't 'poor'. So they wouldn't qualify for the "special protections" (i.e., old age welfare) that the Post advises. And they rely on the Social Security they've been paying into all their lives as a key protection against having to become poor in their retirement years.

They're just not in the Post's field of vision.