Not Over Yet

Posted by on . 14 comments.

In 2005 I spent a lot of time, too much time actually, writing about Social Security and the President’s dishonest and misguided attempt to gut and privatize one of the most popular and successful programs in this country’s history. But George W. Bush had just won reelection and made “reform” his top priority, so I felt it important to document the alternate reality he rolled out as he traveled around to fake photo ops and Potemkin town hall meetings. From totally manipulative nonsense about Social Security shortchanging African Americans to his stunt at the Office of Public Debt Accounting and borderline un-constitutional assertions that the nearly $2 trillion in the Social Security trust fund is worthless, it was quite the roadshow. But for a seriously united Democratic opposition, Bush would have had his way. The clash would prove a sign of things to come. Despite a failed war full of death, destruction, and PR disasters, the beginning of the Bush downfall (and the Democratic ascendancy) was the battle for Social Security.

But just as Bush wasn’t chastened after his popular vote loss in 2000 nor his narrow win in 2004, anyone expecting him to reverse course now is in for a surprise. And according to Dean Baker, it’s a pretty big surprise:

The basic story is that the Bush [health care] plan refunds Social Security tax payments on the first $15k of wages for workers who have a family insurance policy. For a worker earning $20k a year, this would mean most of their SS taxes would be refunded, but they would also see their benefits cut by close to 60 percent when they retire. In other words, this proposal would imply a massive change to the SS system, with the greatest impact on the benefits received by low wage workers.

This, in a word, is insane. It appears that Bush is trying to kill two birds with one stone: begin the process of gutting Social Security while at the same time sacrificing the future retirement security of the poorest working Americans in an attempt to stimulate spending now with the refunded taxes. It’s comforting to hear that Congressional Democrats describe this plan as “dead on arrival,” but this and Bush’s executive order governing agency regulations certainly are warning shots to anyone who thinks that Bush is a lame duck with two years left.

Comments

  1. Carl Gordon says:
    February 5, 2007 at 11:02 am

    He certainly appears to be pushing the cognitive reality frame of reference out somewhere past the left field bleachers! As part of my pointless attempts at understanding him and community integration, I’m further continuing with my exploitation of the different churches in my village. Because I care! Today I attended seasonal bung service at the Zion Christian Church (ZCC). From what I’ve gleaned from the disinformation of their web site so far, the ZCC pastor has the largest member of all the churches in my village. I believe the ZCC has grey and roan foal origins, related to Gum Legs, which I bet the entire Gardner fortune on in the 5th at Santa Anita, only to end in disappointment whence he slipped on the errant mule muffin left from the previous $10,000 claimer. It’s easy to know who ZCC members are in the community because they all wear a miniature toilet plunger over a small piece of green felt, cut in the shape of their favorite cookie. Both of the General Duty Asses (short for assistants) in my surgical penis clinic are ZCC members. Non-ZCC members are gagged, stripped and forced to engage in the ZCC and their odd rituals, I was warned. Today as the clinic driver was transporting me home, I mentioned ZCC and he laughed. He said that the ZCC do indeed have some odd rituals, among them drinking lots of instant coffee, sticking a metal pipe in their anus to induce diarrhea, listening to “Bob and Ray Show” reruns, and jumping while simultaneously farting and singing. Well, at the service I attended I observed none of these odd rituals except the coffee and the jumping/farting/singing thing. I was especially happy about being left out of the metal pipe to the anus ritual!

  2. sac says:
    February 5, 2007 at 11:40 am

    But for a seriously united Democratic opposition, Bush would have had his way.

    This sentence is clearly bullshit as the Dems were in the minority at the time and therefore, were powerless to do much of anything.

  3. matt says:
    February 5, 2007 at 11:52 am

    This sentence is clearly bullshit as the Dems were in the minority at the time and therefore, were powerless to do much of anything.

    what is this supposed to be, your “gotcha moment?” are you comparing social security (a program that touches the lives of literally every american) to the war (whose financial costs are deferred and well-hidden, and whose human costs are severely limited to families of troops)?

    a question, not optional if you wish to continue: can you pick any other issue where something like this could have happened? supreme court? taxes? anything other than that promised check in the mail at retirement?

  4. sac says:
    February 5, 2007 at 12:05 pm

    An exception to the rule, then? That’s kind of a cop out.

    To answer your question, of course the minority cannot influence every issue and every vote, particularly Supreme Court nominations. But they should try anyway. Every time. On every vote. Whether they win or lose. Because they will win some of them. Otherwise they are wasting space in the Congress. I really don’t see what is so controversial about this stance. It’s what the Republicans did in ’94. But wait, that was yet another exception the rule, right?

  5. matt says:
    February 5, 2007 at 12:31 pm

    An exception to the rule, then? That’s kind of a cop out.

    not if you can’t find other examples where it could have happened.

    But they should try anyway.

    who isn’t trying?

    i’m starting to get why you are having such a hard time understanding the situation. it’s the homogenization of republicans vs the diversity of democrats. ted kennedy isn’t going to agree with ben nelson much. democrats have to worry about defection on more issues from more members. it certainly makes it incredibly difficult to hold the line on all but the biggest-impact votes, and i can’t really think of any other than social security. medicare/medicaid maybe becaus old people vote, but seriously, find more.

    I really don’t see what is so controversial about this stance. It’s what the Republicans did in ‘94. But wait, that was yet another exception the rule, right?

    republicans in 94 didn’t do anything as much as the dems did to themselves. not sure what you think went on then, but the contract wouldn’t have happened sans the media’s savage treatment of hillarycare and democratic ethics problems. so yeah, another exception. and when something happens once every 12 years, it can safely be called an exception.

  6. sac says:
    February 5, 2007 at 12:58 pm

    I’m well aware of the inherent challenge of the Democratic Party, which is how to accommodate the diversity of opinions and still be a viable, singular political unit. The Dems are the party of the disenfranchised, the party of the guy who brings the “Legalize Pot” banner to every rally, no matter the issue at hand. That is a problem and in fact, it is the very problem I’ve been addressing in this line of argument with you. How to bury those differences and put up a unified front when it matters.

    At the root of this is the process- vs. results-oriented way of viewing the world. The Dems, and people naturally attracted to that party (myself included) tend to be more concerned with HOW things get done, while the Republicans and those attracted to that party tend to be more concerned with whether those things are actually getting done. My opinion, and it may be highly idealistic, is that the Dems should adopt a more results-oriented strategy. In the minority? Filibuster, hold hearings, vocally oppose, AS A PARTY, whatever it is they disagree with. Not 100% in agreement with each other on a certain issue? Figure it out, compromise, BEHIND CLOSED DOORS, then present a UNIFIED message to the public. Use talking points! Do those make your soul shudder? Too fucking bad, they work. Get over it.

    That kind of thing.

  7. matt says:
    February 5, 2007 at 1:07 pm

    How to bury those differences and put up a unified front when it matters.

    i don’t think the “legalize pot” banner people can be unified, i know ben nelson can’t, and bachus, lieberman, etc aren’t much behind him.

    My opinion, and it may be highly idealistic, is that the Dems should adopt a more results-oriented strategy. In the minority? Filibuster, hold hearings, vocally oppose, AS A PARTY, whatever it is they disagree with. Not 100% in agreement with each other on a certain issue? Figure it out, compromise, BEHIND CLOSED DOORS, then present a UNIFIED message to the public. Use talking points! Do those make your soul shudder? Too fucking bad, they work. Get over it.

    well, we don’t disagree on this. dems need to get used to not “negotiating with themselves” in the press. but filibuster isn’t usually the answer, and jumping up and down rarely is.

  8. sac says:
    February 5, 2007 at 1:11 pm

    but filibuster isn’t usually the answer, and jumping up and down rarely is.

    The former I used as just one example and the latter is a strawman. But also, what do you suggest?

  9. matt says:
    February 5, 2007 at 1:19 pm

    The former I used as just one example and the latter is a strawman.

    i think you’d prefer to see it more than not. and the latter is most of what’s left.

    i suggest exactly what i did suggest. better backroom dealmaking and less ben nelson running to a microphone the second he’s done chatting with scalito to say how reasonable he finds him.

  10. sac says:
    February 5, 2007 at 1:25 pm

    I’d like to see filibusters used judiciously. I honestly can’t remember the last time one was used at all and I can think of a number of instances in the past 7 years where one should have been employed. Of course, the Republicans and possibly the media would trot out the “obstructionist” tag, but so what?

  11. matt says:
    February 5, 2007 at 1:30 pm

    Of course, the Republicans and possibly the media would trot out the “obstructionist” tag, but so what?

    they would and do, like i’ve been saying forever. so what? bye bye tom daschelle and any number of other red state dems. you can keep them, really, but only after we have enough blue staters to make up the difference.

  12. sac says:
    February 5, 2007 at 1:54 pm

    Don’t you think that to really change the Dem party, we have to take certain risks? I do.

  13. matt says:
    February 5, 2007 at 2:01 pm

    of course. our disagreement (today) really boils down to the media. if there weren’t so many instances of the media deciding to play along with charges of obstructionism etc, i’d be all for going all the way. but i can’t condone lost cause hail marys when coverage (how 99.9999999% of people fnd out about what goes on in the congress) is defaulting to republican spin.

    we’ll have a really nice test in a few minutes as the republicans try to blog an iraq resolution.

  14. sac says:
    February 5, 2007 at 2:14 pm

    I’m not of the opinion that the media slant is de facto Republican. Sure, Fox News would make Hilter weep with envy, but the rest of the landscape is varied. The one thing that every news outlet has in common is the desire to put eyes on their text. What catches the eye of the reading public are soundbites. The Republicans are geniuses at producing effective soundbites that media outlets can glom on to and the public can easily digest with along with their Big Mac. This is not because Republican policies are inherently simpler than Democratic policies, but because they have learned to crunch them down into soundbites and talking points. They play the media beautifully and the media respond, not out of some political affinity with the Republican message, but to the artfully whittled-down verbiage that spews forth out of Republican talking heads.

    This is just one example of what I believe the Dems should do more of. Learn how to play to the media’s need for simplistic stories. Feed the 24-hour news cycle. I’m telling you, “the media” is not left or right. It just gloms on to stories it believes it can sell.