As we’ve said again and again, we’re following the doings and shenanigans of the Fainthearted Faction for a very specific reason: we want all Democrats lined up in opposition to the president’s Social Security phase-out bill, because that raises the stakes and puts the focus on those Republicans who might be scared to help phase-out Social Security without a good bit of bipartisan cover.
We don’t want to assume only cynical motives. Some probably just don’t want to be part of ending Social Security. And as we wrote late last month, that’s why we’re calling them the Conscience Caucus.
The concept is the same as the Fainthearted Faction, only inverted: these are the Republicans who seem most likely to leave President Bush waiting at the altar when he comes a’courtin’ with his Social Security phase-out plan.
Now, we’re pretty confident that the Caucus is going to be a good deal larger than the Faction. And many of those members are going to be reps. and senators who have their fingers to the wind and eyes on the polls seeing what looks safe and what doesn’t. But today we’ve got a senator who seems to have committed himself to opposing the president’s plan even before the whistle gets blown.
In response to constituent queries about his position on Social Security, Sen. Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania just started sending out an email outlining his position. In the email he professes his support for the program, his enchantment with the lockbox and various other points.
But the heart of the note is contained in two paragraphs (emphasis added) …
As the baby boomer population ages and enters into retirement, the need for Social Security reform becomes even more apparent. Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan urged Congress in February of 2004 to deal with the countryâs escalating budget deficit by cutting benefits for future Social Security retirees. I strongly oppose this approach.
…
On the issue of privatization, I had some time ago considered an idea to place a relatively small portion of benefits in an investment account, providing that the âsecurityâ aspect of Social Security was retained and the investment was under professional management. However, with the severe fluctuations of the stock market, I have since rejected that idea.
In the first graf quoted he rules out benefit cuts and in the second, unless I’m missing something, he categorically rules out privatization, i.e., private investment accounts funded by a carve-out from Social Security revenues.
So that’s pretty much it. Specter isn’t just in the Caucus. As long as he sticks by what he says in this letter to constituents, he’s out of play completely for the president.
(Hold on to that Chairmanship with both hands, Arlen.)
