Josh Marshall

Josh Marshall is editor and publisher of TalkingPointsMemo.com.

Articles by Josh

The New York Sun, December 2nd, 2004: "Yet another [senator] with perceived presidential ambitions, Senator Santorum of Pennsylvania, is viewed as potentially the most effective White House point man on the [Social Security] issue, in part because he has been a staunch supporter of accounts but does not have his own bill or a personal stake in a particular proposal. 'He has spoken out since his days in the House and has run two senatorial campaigns that talked about reform in a swing state - and lived to tell about it,' Mr. John said."

Does he still want to be point-man?

We've been trying to find public statements from the senator on the president's Social Security phase-out plan. And they're really hard to find over the last six or seven weeks. There's no question he still supports it: here's the statement of support on his website. We just can't find many recent statements.

Statement of Michael K. Powell, FCC Chairman: "In response to recent reports regarding potential violations of the "payola" and sponsorship identification provisions of the Communications Act, I have instructed the Enforcement Bureau to open two investigations: One into issues regarding commentator Armstrong Williams; and the other into issues regarding station WKSE (FM), Niagara Falls, New York, licensed a subsidiary of Entercom Communications Corporation. These provisions govern disclosure and sponsorship identification regarding payments or other consideration in connection with broadcast programs."

The Sibel Edmonds story has rattled through the alternative press for quite a long time now, only occasionally bubbling up into the mainstream media. But today she enlisted a new supporter, one which carries a good bit of weight -- the Justice Department's Office of Inspector General.

In a just-released unclassified summary of their report into her allegations, the IG concluded that while not all of her allegations could be substantiated, "we believe that many of her allegations were supported, that the FBI did not take them seriously enough, and that her allegations were, in fact, the most significant factor in the FBI's decision to terminate her services."

Rep. Aderholt (R) of Alabama <$NoAd$> says president is "sort of" lying?

Aderholt agrees with reform critics who say Social Security is not in crisis. Aderholt said he believes reform is needed, but there is no reason to rush the reform effort.

"It's sort of deceiving when we talk about the situation being that we are on the brink of disaster. We're not. It will be several decades before the system goes bankrupt," Aderholt said.

Aderholt worries that political rhetoric designed to push legislation through Congress will scare his retired constituents.

See the rest from the Decatur Daily.

We're hearing from many readers across the country who are calling or writing to their representatives and senators only to hear that they can't make any public comment because the president hasn't released his plan yet.

"The staffer I talked to this afternoon in Senator [blank]'s office," says one reader, "told me that they had been waiting to go public because they didn't have a concrete proposal to respond to."


This sort of mumbojumbo might have some logic from a Republican up for reelection next year who's trying to be as cautious as possible. But why would any Democrat -- like the recently-reelected senator from the Northwest whose office the reader contacted -- be saying something so foolish? The White House has its own reasons for pretending they haven't decided on a specific plan yet. But why do the president's opponents have to pretend that that's really true?

Everybody in the country who's paying any attention to this debate knows the essence of the president's plan -- he wants to replace a portion of Social Security with private investment accounts. How he fudges the numbers on the cost side or deals with benefit cuts remains a bit muddled. But the fundamental point is as clear as day.

So why should any senator or representative be waiting one minute to make their position clear, unless he or she is seriously entertaining the idea of voting for the president's plan?

How many details of an upper-income-earner tax hike do most Republicans need to see before they're willing to say they oppose it?

Yeah, that's my sense too.

To be cagey like this is not only a disservice, even a dishonesty, to constituents, it's also the height of foolishness for any lawmaker who really cares about preserving Social Security and not letting the president end the program.

Senator Olympia Snowe (R) of Maine, from this morning's Press Herald: "I don't think there's any consensus on what the problem [with Social Security] is or the extent of the problem. I have serious concerns about undermining the fundamental principles of the Social Security Trust Fund."

It looks like Rep. Gene Taylor of Mississippi really is on the way out of the Faction.

In this morning's Sun Herald, Taylor's policy director Brian Martin is quoted as saying, "Congressman Taylor doesn't support forming private accounts. Social Security is in a better financial position than anything else in the government. It actually collects more money than it spends."

We assume Rep. Taylor is still overseas (see last night's post). And we'd like to see a statement from the man himself before striking his name from the Faction roll. But it seems now like it's just a matter of time.

Steve Soto has some thoughts on countering the White House's Social Security phase-out game-plan.

Two perspectives <$NoAd$> ...

"[Social Security] has fulfilled the promise announced by President Franklin Roosevelt -– providing vital income to millions of seniors, and assuring generations of working people that their retirement years would have some decent measure of security ... a just society ensures that elderly people can grow old with dignity. For that reason our nation established the Social Security system. And that is why, after 70 years, Social Security remains a fundamental commitment of both our political parties."

Vice President Dick Cheney
Catholic University of America
January 13th, 2005

"For the first time in six decades, the Social Security battle is one we can win -- and in doing so, we can help transform the political and philosophical landscape of the country."

Peter H. Wehner
Deputy Assistant to the President
Office of Strategic Initiatives
"Some Thoughts on Social Security"
January 3rd, 2005

Two perspectives.

Why hasn't more attention been given to this passage from Paul Krugman's column from earlier this week ...

Even with the most favorable assumptions, the benefits of privatization wouldn't kick in until most of the baby boomers were long gone. For the next 45 years, privatization would cost much more money than it saved.

Advocates of privatization almost always pretend that all we have to do is borrow a bit of money up front, and then the system will become self-sustaining. The Wehner memo talks of borrowing $1 trillion to $2 trillion "to cover transition costs." Similar numbers have been widely reported in the news media.

But that's just the borrowing over the next decade. Privatization would cost an additional $3 trillion in its second decade, $5 trillion in the decade after that and another $5 trillion in the decade after that. By the time privatization started to save money, if it ever did, the federal government would have run up around $15 trillion in extra debt.

These numbers are based on a Congressional Budget Office analysis of Plan 2, which was devised by a special presidential commission in 2001 and is widely expected to be the basis for President Bush's plan.

No doubt, the work of the <$NoAd$> Bush-bashers at CBO ...

Late Update: Reps. Spratt and Hoyer are now on the case.