Josh Marshall

Josh Marshall is editor and publisher of TalkingPointsMemo.com.

Articles by Josh

If you're in Little Rock or Tampa, you're up. Today's your day. The Bamboozlebooza Tour is coming to town. If you're going to be on hand for the festivities do let us know and let us know what you hear and see. If you've got a blog, even better. There may even be a "Privatize This" T-Shirt in it for you.

Even better, are you on the black-list for today's events in either town? If so and you can prove it, there's a definite shirt in it for you. At the moment, the White House is claiming that the Fargo black-list was the work of an "overzealous volunteer" whose identity they and the local Republican party claim they are nevertheless unable to discover.

We wondered last night whether Rep. Denny Rehberg (R) of Montana had really gotten through all the festivities yesterday without making any mention of his position on the president's phase-out plan. Well, we hear this morning from listeners on the scene that Rehberg made some equivocal comments on the radio. And this passage from today's Missoulian seems to be the closest he got in print ...

Fellow Republicans U.S. Sen. Conrad Burns and Rep. Denny Rehberg, both of Montana, said after the speech they haven't made up their minds on Bush's ideas. Rehberg said the country needs to openly discuss the issue and not kill the opportunity to fix Social Security with partisan bickering.

"The president is trying to create a consensus opportunity," Rehberg said.

Clearly, Rehberg now gets slotted into FIW status in the Caucus. But if I'm not mistaken Bush didn't even get the two Republicans in Montana to sign on to his plan. If you see instances of the national press picking up on this fact rather than going on about Baucus, can you drop us a line about that too?

This isn't about Democrats: The President Is Hunting for Republicans Who Will Go On The Record In Support of His Plan.

Now on to Arkansas and Florida.

As we said we're keen to get reports from the ground in both states. As we told you here at TPM earlier and in more detail in my column this week in The Hill, Tampa is a hotbed of membership in the Conscience Caucus. You've got our favorite Rep. Ginny Brown-Waite to the north, Caucus member Rep. Bill Young right next door, Caucus member Rep. Katherine Harris to the South. And aside from them you've got folks like Rep. Bilirakis (R) who don't even seem willing to discuss the issue with the press and Rep. Adam Putnam (R) who looks likely to shift whichever way the wind blows.

These Floridians all to one degree or another have their fingers in the wind. And if you can't say much else for them they're good weather vanes, especially Rep. Brown-Waite. So if you hear them chatting on the radio or get quoted in the papers or if they get up on stage with the president to testify to their phase-out conversion experience, do let us know.

So basically the president is finding hardly any Republicans in any of these states who are willing to go on the record in support of his plan. This is why I would never make it in the news business. I woulda thought that'd be a big story.

Does Donald Luskin have a problem?

No, this isn't a trick question. C'mon, play along.

On January 31st, Luskin wrote that the "president is seeking to reform Social Security with personal accounts — which, by the way, is the same reform being argued for by Harold Ford, the African American Democratic congressman from Tennessee."

Today, no less a worthy than Rush Limbaugh (R-Elysium) flogged the Harold Ford angle too, perhaps picking it up from Luskin.

Admittedly, Ford was once the Dean of the Fainthearted Faction.

But as far back as December 30th, he announced: "I do not support changing the Social Security system as has been proposed by President Bush, nor do I support Social Security proposals advanced by the CATO Institute. In fact, both of these proposals have the potential to harm current beneficiaries by paying for the transition costs by issuing debt. Piling on more red ink to the existing federal budget deficit and the national debt will do both long and short term harm to our economy. I do believe that the system needs to be reformed but I do not support changing the Social Security system as President Bush has proposed."

Then late last month he went even further to clear up any confusion. According to the Memphis Flyer, in their interview with the congressman, he "den[ied] that he does now, or ever did, advocate tapping payroll taxes to create the accounts."

There's even this passage from the article in question ...

And the congressman was quite explicit this week about disavowing not only President Bush's Social Security reform proposals but the concept underlying it. "I have not signed on to any legislation, since I have been in Congress to take money from Social Security to create private accounts. I do not favor privatizing Social Security. I am opposed to President Bush's attempt to do so. Categorically," he said.

As TPM readers are well aware, those are the words that finally got Ford ejected from the Fainthearted Faction altogether.

So it seems, contrary to Mr. Luskin, that Ford really doesn't support President Bush's plan.

Now, I am by no means trying to insert myself into some Luskin-Ford smackdown. But there does seem to be a problem.

Perhaps Democrats should give some serious thought to amplifying this statement from Chairman of the Ways and Means Subcommittee on Social Security, Rep. James McCrery (R) of Louisiana.

From the AP ...

"The AARP and the Democrats think if you divert some money from the trust fund," the existing program will be undermined, McCrery said. "That is true on its face. It does decrease the level of the trust fund. Politically, that's going to be a very strong tool that (opponents) can use to defeat a plan."

That's quite <$Ad$> a thing for someone in his position to say. The Republican with the Social Security portfolio in the House says that diverting money out of Social Security into private accounts weakens Social Security.

Just yesterday, according to the Los Angeles Times, a Bush aide conceded that implementing "individual accounts would do nothing to solve the system's long-term financial problems." But McCrery goes further, affirming the whole truth, which is that they will not only not improve Social Security's longtime solvency they will greatly undermine it.

If that's true, why would anybody be for them?

Did I mention Democrats should mention this?

Did I miss something or did Conscience Caucus member Rep. Denny Rehberg (R) of Montana stay mum while squiring President Bush around Montana? Last we checked in with the congressman's office, his spokesman Brad Keena told us the congressman was "open-minded" about privatization.

I see here where Sen. Conrad Burns (R), who I guess isn't exactly what you'd call a centrist, said he was "intrigued" by Bush's privatization plan. "Social Security is still a very, very important part of the retirement of a lot of seniors in Montana," he went on to say. "So we'll listen and we'll look and we'll probe ... and see what is in it for the next generation."

Frankly, it hadn't even occurred to me that President Bush couldn't count on Burns as a phase-out man. But what about Rehberg? I can't see where he was quoted anywhere today in any paper even though he spent a good part of the day traveling at the center of the national news bubble and he's one of three members of the Montana congressional delegation. Maybe I'm missing some comment to a local radio or TV station. And if there was, I'd be much obliged if you'd let me know. But as near as I can tell, Rehberg didn't answer any questions about the president's plan at all. And I figure there would have been some press interest had he been inclined to do so.

Everyone's reporting, rightly, that Sen. Baucus (D) made clear he's not going to support President Bush on phasing out Social Security. But isn't the story here that President Bush just won this state with 59% of the vote in November. He went to campaign in the state to support his new Social Security privatization plan. And he couldn't get any members of the state's congressional delegation to endorse his plan -- and two of them are from his own party.

Oddly enough, in its reporting, CNN makes no mention of this -- another example of the dire need for a blog devoted entirely to documenting the decline and Foxification of this once proud network.

Mayor Mike Bloomberg (R - well sorta) of New York becomes first Associate Member of the Conscience Caucus.

From the Times ...

Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg distanced himself from President Bush yesterday on the president's proposal to divert some Social Security taxes into private investment accounts, describing the plan, which was the central theme of Mr. Bush's State of the Union address, as excessively risky.

"I've never thought that privatizing Social Security made a lot of sense," said Mr. Bloomberg, who, like Mr. Bush, is a Republican. "I think what you'd see is that people would invest - some people would invest - unwisely."

He added, "These are not monies that people should be speculating with."
Someone needs <$NoAd$> to get Larry Kudlow to explain markets to this bozo.

Rep. Ginny Brown-Waite (R) Floridia billows in the wind. Says she: "There are a lot of unanswered questions and until I have the answers to them, I am still in the 'withholding judgment' category."

We've put her in the Conscience Caucus with FIW status.

A simple question that should be asked of Scott McClellan tomorrow and the president whenever the next opportunity arises ...

The Social Security Trust Fund now has accumulated roughly $1.8 trillion worth of US Treasury bonds. That total debt of the United States government is, if memory serves, just over $7 trillion. US Treasury bonds are owned by Americans, foreigners, individuals, pension funds, everybody under the sun. Most of the president's personal wealth appears to be tied up in them. They're universally considered to be the safest investment in the world. George W. Bush is the President of the United States. So the question is to him. Are the Treasury notes in the Social Security Trust Fund backed by the full faith and credit of the United States every bit as much as the bonds everyone else owns?

Everything the president is saying implies that they are not, that there is a very big question about whether those notes can or will ever be redeemed. So if they're not, the president should say so now.

Wouldn't it be something if the battle for Social Security was won on the Hill and on the hustings but lost in the newsrooms?

It could be happen. Actually, it might be happening right now.

I've got a list here of Republicans who went into the Conscience Caucus today. And with any luck I'll be able to post on most of them tonight. For a sampling, take a look at this AP article. But right now the White House and its Hill allies can see they're losing this debate because the essential fraudulence of their arguments are being exposed.

President Bush's top aides are getting cornered into admitting that private accounts won't do anything to improve the solvency of Social Security. Actually, it pushes it toward insolvency. But candor comes in small packages from these folks. So I guess be grateful. The claim that there was any 'crisis' tanked so quickly even the White House isn't making that argument anymore. And as the Post notes, most of the money you make in your private account goes back to the government. The White House is now furiously denying it. But we've got the transcript of the "senior administration official" saying just that to reporters.

Across the board, the debate is going badly because the whole plan is being revealed for what it is: not an effort to shore up or preserve Social Security but an attempt to phase the program out. You can even see various news outlets over the last 72 hours swaying back to 'private accounts' and 'privatization' in their discussions of President Bush's plan.

And for all these reasons the RNC and the White House are launching a furious assault against the major national news outlets trying to muscle them into shifting the tone and the assumptions of their coverage. The cable networks (at least the ones not already taking orders directly), the broadcast network news divisions, the major national dailies.

Part of it is the language, the speech code, but equally important is the basic issue of when the program will face actual difficulties. If the Bush plan calls for 40% benefit cuts those are cuts. But if the current benefit levels will in fact never be paid, then cuts aren't really cuts, right?

Look through the various transcripts of background briefings posted here and elsewhere to see examples of this.

Let's try an example. Let's say a hypothetical Bush plan cuts benefits by 40%. But what if the White House says that as things are going now recipients in a few decades will only get 50% of their benefits. Well then the Bush plan isn't really a 40% cut; it's more like a 10 percentage point increase in benefits. Or maybe there is no Trust Fund. The whole basis of the 1983 reform just doesn't exist. And the $1.8 trillion just doesn't need to be paid back.

You can see where this sort of stuff goes. And it's what's going on right now.

The issue isn't bias. It's just that the media is far more playable than it should be. And the Republicans just play them harder, more systematically, better.

Who's pushing back on the pro-Social Security side? Who's knocking down the new round of flimflam? Might be good if someone did.


Clinton Postpones Trip To Charlotte

In a statement released Friday evening, Hillary Clinton's campaign announced that the Democratic nominee…