Prometheus 6 - For the Democrats

Simple enough for ANY Congressman to understand

Thu, 10 Mar 2005 17:08:50 -0500

Let's say we assemble a package of changes to Social Security, including a diversion ("carve-out", my ass!) of funds from Social Security to private accounts that somehow manages, by the necessary combination of tax increases ("revenue enhancements," my ass!) and benefit cuts. If you put is all on a Social Security balance sheet, the diversion would have to count as an outflow...a reduction of the cash available to pay benefits.

Now. Remove that diversion from the balance sheet.

Suddenly there's a bag of money laying around. And the size of the necessary tax increase or benefit cut is reduced. Drastically.

It's that simple.

I knew it wouldn't last.

Fri, 4 Mar 2005 07:48:05 -0500

Two part quote of note:

1 . Two days ago, Frist noted intense Democratic opposition and suggested he might not be able to move a bill to the Senate floor this year, as Bush has pushed for. "I want to be realistic," Frist said on Tuesday.

2. Yesterday, Frist said he would work to move the legislation forward.

Well, that shoots being realistic all to hell, doesn't it?

You know what the problem is, don't you?

His comments come as Bush tries to navigate a challenging political landscape.

Bush is playing politics with our money. And everyone knows that now.

Senate leader, in shift, urges swift action on Social Security
Vows to advance key legislation
By Laura Meckler, Associated Press | March 4, 2005

They're jumping ship

Thu, 3 Mar 2005 06:29:10 -0500

And what have you learned children, if nothing else?

Gov. Softens Pension Stance
His finance director says Schwarzenegger is willing to bend on a proposal to shift state workers to private retirement accounts.
By Evan Halper
Times Staff Writer
March 3, 2005

SACRAMENTO The Schwarzenegger administration is backing away from its demand that the state employees' pension system be replaced with private retirement accounts.

Finance Director Tom Campbell said Wednesday at a legislative hearing that the governor is open to changing the pension system in other ways, provided there are savings for taxpayers and predictable costs for the state.

Hopefully you've learned that reality + understanding > rhetoric. This is exactly what has happened in the Social Security debate as well. Hesiod, writing at The American Street, doesn't feel this is necessarily good news.

Bill Frist on the worship of icons

Wed, 2 Mar 2005 09:34:17 -0500

Same interview.

JIM LEHRER: As you know, the Democrats say if you in fact do that, they will use rules like using the unanimous consent rule, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera, in other words, not going along with unanimous consent, and essentially shut down the business of the United States Senate.

SEN. BILL FRIST: Jim, I just have to keep coming back to the Constitution of the United States. Last week or last month when thirty-three, thirty-four senators took an oath, they didn't take an oath of government overall; they took an oath to the Constitution of the United States of America and it come back -- the other side of the aisle really believes that they ought to stop the nation's business when we have to make health care more available and more affordable; we're fighting a war on terror today.

Isn't that like worshipping a bible instead of God?

On the nuclear option

Wed, 2 Mar 2005 08:39:31 -0500

Last night, in discussing The Nuclear Option with Jim Lehrer, Bill Frist said some things that make me glad so many shows have transcripts on the net.

Democrats' nuclear option

JIM LEHRER: Are you prepared to use what's called a nuclear option

SEN. BILL FRIST: Jim, I'd like not to have to and I hope by allowing these nominees, even like today, who've already had a hearing, that we're having them go back, have another hearing, the same sort of questions chose to sort of balance common sense restraint that I am showing.

I tell you what I cannot -- or we're showing - I tell you what I cannot tolerate and that is to throw away 220 years of history in this country where it's never been done before, never been done before. It was done last Congress. We can't let that stand as a precedent and I will do everything within my power as Republican leader, Majority Leader, to get an up or down vote. And there are a whole range of things that can be done.

First it was filled with a degree of restraint on our side and their side just to allow them to a vote. But, yes, everything is on the table, and we may well have to use either a constitutional option, if we have no choice, and I hope that we don't have to though.

Let me draw attention to that one more time:

Details on Bush's Death Tax and Retirement Tax

Wed, 23 Feb 2005 07:13:03 -0500

Some Inheritance
Published: February 23, 2005

...Under the president's proposal, when you retired you would not be able to start spending the money in your private account until after you bought an annuity, a financial contract in which you hand over a lump-sum payment and, in return, get a monthly stream of income for life. The upside of buying such an annuity would be that you'd be protected against outliving all of your money. The downside is that even if you died immediately after retirement, the most your heirs would inherit would be the amount that remained in your private account after you had paid for the mandatory annuity. (If you lived longer, of course, you might well need to spend the remainder to supplement the annuity's low monthly payout. )

I hope you're all paying attention to Prof. Krugman

Tue, 22 Feb 2005 09:42:04 -0500

Quote of note:

...a president can always change the subject to national security if he wants to - and Mr. Bush has repeatedly shown himself willing to play the terrorism card when he is losing the debate on other issues. So it's important to point out that Mr. Bush, for all his posturing, has done a very bad job of protecting the nation - and to make that point now, rather than in the heat of the next foreign crisis.

Wag-the-Dog Protection

By PAUL KRUGMAN

The campaign against Social Security is going so badly that longtime critics of President Bush, accustomed to seeing their efforts to point out flaws in administration initiatives brushed aside, are pinching themselves. But they shouldn't relax: if the past is any guide, the Bush administration will soon change the subject back to national security.

Misdirected concern

Sun, 20 Feb 2005 09:03:40 -0500

Quote of note:

At a minimum, say party strategists, the shift will mean a more confrontational Democratic Party in battles with President Bush and the Republicans. But some strategists worry that the influence of grass-roots activists could push the party even further to the left, particularly on national security, reinforcing a weakness that Bush exploited in his reelection campaign.

You know, everyone in the media should have my little red motto at the top of the page tattooed on the inside of their eyelids.

Remember what the issues were that shifted the election at the last minute. It was not national security. Democrats are so accustomed explaining that yes, they are willing to use military force (that's what "national security" means, you know) they may be tempted to have a knee-jerk reaction to this analysis. But "national security" was fully discounted months before the actual election.

Not smart, Mr. Inhofe. You could set a precedent.

Sat, 19 Feb 2005 08:47:35 -0500

Quote of note:

The funding, Wheeler said, "goes to who they're speaking for."

I have no problem ceding the committee authority to examine anything legitimately in their purview, but the environment and public works don't involve any process that can be validated or disproved by the balance sheet of its champion. The Environment and Public Works Committee should have no power to examine anyone's finances or taxes at all. There's probably a committee somewhere in the Senate that I could be convinced should have the ability to make such requests. But Mr. Imhofe seems to think such demands are a perk of being a Senator or committee chairman and that's just not the case...if any committee can do anything any committee can do, the Department of Education would have the same powers as authorities as the Department of War. Defense. You know what I mean.

But I'm half inclined to accept this overreach in return for their recognizing "who they're speaking for" is a legitimate concern. In these days of organizations named specifically to mislead constituents about the organization's positions (The Alliance for Worker Retirement Security, Black America's PAC and the Center for the Study of Popular Culture leap to mind) I think probing their financial and tax records would bring all manner of fascinating things to light.

Anyway...

Opponents of 'Clear Skies' Bill Examined
The GOP sponsor of legislation championed by Bush asks two groups to turn over financial records. One official calls it intimidation.
By Alan C. Miller and Tom Hamburger
Times Staff Writers

We've got an absurdity on its face

Thu, 17 Feb 2005 09:14:04 -0500

Abiola at Foreign Dispatches linked to Kurt Anderson's essay on the Iraqi Elections, the substance of which is

Each of us has a Hobbesian choice concerning Iraq; either we hope for the vindication of Bush's risky, very possibly reckless policy, or we are in a de-facto alliance with the killers of American soldiers and Iraqi civilians. We can be angry with Bush for bringing us to this nasty ethical crossroads, but here we are nonetheless.

That is the STOOOPITEST description of the situation I have ever seen. And I'm a New Yorker too.

We are not hoping for vindication of Bush's policy, but for recovery from it. The goal is to minimize the damage. That "de-facto alliance" crap is for minds that can't handle more that two options at a time.

Don't believe the hype

Thu, 17 Feb 2005 07:20:38 -0500

"D'oh!" of note:

Greenspan warned that establishing the investment accounts could have a major effect on interest rates. He did not say what that effect might be, but other economists have said that new borrowing by the government as part of creating the accounts might have the effect of driving up interest rates.

If Bush changed his position that is, indeed, headline news. Too bad he still hasn't changed to the right position. His priorities are still screwed.

We know for a fact that privatizing Social Security in and of itself does nothing to balance its books. Yet that is still the central goal in Bush's plans. And it is, shall we say, less than clear balancing Social Security is the goal...or that his position has changed more than rhetorically.

On Wednesday, Bush spokesman Trent Duffy made no attempt to clarify Bush's remarks to the regional reporters that all options but a tax rate increase were under consideration, saying the president did not necessarily contradict himself.

"Just because options are on the table doesn't mean he's endorsed anything," Duffy said. "This is just a good sign of the president's willingness to be flexible and open to ideas."

In fact, Grover "date rape" Norquist thinks Bush is lying.

Grover Norquist, a leading anti-tax activist and advisor to the White House on Social Security, said he did not believe that Bush would agree to raising the $90,000 cap, despite the apparent shift in his public negotiating position. But he acknowledged that the president's remarks would rattle some conservatives.

"Should it make us nervous when somebody says, 'I would think about cutting off your fingers,' even if you don't think he really would? Yes. It makes one nervous," Norquist said. "I understand that it's his job to say, 'Let's come to the table and have a conversation.' He's counting on the fact that once you get in the room, the American people will demand personal savings accounts, and they will not demand higher taxes."

(By the way, I know Dick Armey was the one who coined the phrase. That's kind of beside the point though, isn't it?)

If fixing Social Security forever is really the goal, then anything that doesn't approach that goal should be taken off the table. The goal is difficult enough; why add issues over which there is severe disagreement and which do not help achieve that goal?

Anyway...

Bush Shifts Pension Stance
He says he is open to a higher Social Security tax cap to fund his plan for private accounts. Greenspan endorses a cautious approach.
By Peter Wallsten and Joel Havemann
Times Staff Writers

The serious argument is that politics don't affect economic reality. But no one would understand that.

Mon, 7 Feb 2005 14:30:16 -0500

Quote of note:

Tax increases -- more accurately, undoing the reckless tax cuts that account for a good portion of the current constraints -- are, unfortunately, off the political table.

That is unacceptable.

Were I arguing the Democratic case I'd remind folks we're at war, and we all much make sacrifices in such times. The middle and lower class are sacrificing their lives and their childrens' lives, their financial well-being...I would go so far as to say their critical intelligence but I don't think that would fly. But we know what the lower and middle classes are sacrificing.

What sacrifice is being offered by the wealthy?

Because they own so much of the USofA they benefit more from its safety and should be willing to pay for that protection.

The standard response

Sat, 5 Feb 2005 05:45:54 -0500

Social Security Poker: It's Time for Liberals to Ante Up

By NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF

Liberals are making a historic mistake by lining up so adamantly against Social Security reform.

It's impolite to say so in a blue state, but President Bush has a point: there is a genuine problem with paying for Social Security, even if it isn't as dire as Mr. Bush suggests.

As Bill Clinton declared in 1998 about Social Security reform: "We all know a demographic crisis is looming. ... If we act now it will be easier and less painful than if we wait until later." Mr. Clinton then made Social Security reform a central theme of his 1999 State of the Union address, saying, "Above all, we must save Social Security for the 21st century."

Kristof goes on to accuse Democrats of not having a plan to save Social Security. But he's wrong.

Sort of like admitting there's no WMDs before invading

Fri, 4 Feb 2005 13:49:49 -0500

The Progress Report:

NEVER MIND THE GAP: In a "significant shift in his rationale for the accounts," President Bush has apparently dropped his claim that private accounts would help solve Social Security's fiscal problems "a link he made during last year's presidential campaign." A Bush aide, briefing reporters on the condition of anonymity, admitted "the individual accounts would do nothing to solve the system's long-term financial problems." The aide's admission is backed up by the details of the plan revealed so far; the Washington Post reports the plan would not "close the projected $3.7 trillion gap between Social Security benefits promised over the next 75 years and taxes expected to be collected. That gap would have to be closed through benefit cuts that have yet to be detailed."

NOT A BETTER DEAL: Having dropped the rationale that private accounts will help finance Social Security, President Bush now says the accounts are desirable "because they would be 'a better deal'" for workers. But analysis of the plan so far does not prove the accounts would be a better deal for anyone not working on Wall Street. Workers who opt for the private accounts would recover forfeited benefits through their accounts only "if their investments realized a return equal to or greater than the 3 percent earned by Treasury bonds currently held by the Social Security system." But CBO factors out stock market risks to assume a 3.3 percent rate of return. With 0.3 percent subtracted for expected administrative costs on the account, "the full amount in a worker's account would be reduced dollar for dollar from his Social Security checks, for a net gain of zero."

Can I add something?

Important post No. 1 re: Social Security

Mon, 31 Jan 2005 13:42:41 -0500

Congressional Republicans Agree to Launch Social Security Campaign
By Mike Allen
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, January 31, 2005; Page A04

WHITE SULPHUR SPRINGS, W.Va. -- Congressional Republicans, after three months of internal debate, this weekend launched a months-long campaign to try to convince constituents that rewriting the Social Security law would be cheaper and less risky than leaving it alone, as the White House opened a campaign to pressure several Senate Democrats to support the changes.

The Republicans left an annual retreat in the Allegheny Mountains with a 104-page playbook titled "Saving Social Security," a deliberate echo of the language President Bill Clinton used to argue that the retirement system's trust fund should be built up in anticipation of the baby boomers' retirement.

Though I've never suggested it before, it may be time to get ol' Bill back in the public debate.