The entire range of Democratic opinions on Social Security seem, for a change, to be consistent: no privatizing. Realizing that some semblance of bi-partisanship will be necessary to gut Social Security, the GOP is showing its desperation.
With their push to restructure Social Security off to a rocky start, Bush administration officials have begun citing two Democrats — former President Bill Clinton and the late senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan — to bolster their claims that the retirement system is in crisis.
Let’s look at these two people separately to show just how ridiculous this approach truly is. First, there’s Clinton, who is supposed to be Public Enemy #1 in Republican circles. Did Clinton once talk about Social Security facing a fiscal “crisis”? Yes, but the GOP — surprise, surprise — is wrenching his words from context.
“This fiscal crisis in Social Security affects every generation,” Clinton said in the speech.
But neither Mankiw nor Bolten cited another passage from the same address: “Before we spend a penny on new programs or tax cuts, we should save Social Security first. I think it should be the driving principle . . . Do not have a tax cut. Do not have a spending program that deals with that surplus. Save Social Security first.”
I can’t imagine why the White House would want to keep the entire context from public view. Oh wait, maybe it has something to do with deception? Kind of like leaving out the part in which Clinton helped strengthen Social Security by increasing savings and protecting the system’s guaranteed benefit structure? Or mentioning that Social Security is stronger now than when Clinton took office?
Relying on Clinton to help Bush privatize Social Security is a fool’s errand. Republicans won’t be persuaded and Dems will hear Clinton directly say that he strongly opposes the White House scheme.
But at least Clinton is alive to defend himself against Republicans who are misusing old quotes. Daniel Patrick Moynihan is not, which makes the GOP use of his name far more unseemly.
Bush, in particular, seems to enjoy appropriating Moynihan’s name in this discussion. In the third presidential debate, for example, the president emphasized Moynihan’s role as the co-chairman of Bush’s 2001 Social Security Commission as proof that this was a bi-partisan effort and that he was “reaching out” in good faith. He neglected to mention, however, that Moynihan was no fan of the current White House scheme.
Ron Suskind, for example, wrote an item in Slate in October that explained the degree to which Moynihan resented the White House and the manner in which it approached changing Social Security.
As is typical with most presidential panels, the Social Security commission was stacked from the beginning to produce the results the White House wanted. (As I noted in my book, The Price of Loyalty, all members were pre-approved by the White House’s chief economic and political advisers, Larry Lindsey and Karl Rove. This distressed Treasury Secretary Paul O’Neill, who wanted more balance on the panel.) But to an unusual degree, the White House felt free to strong-arm commissioners who deviated from the Bush game plan, and Moynihan didn’t like it.
And as the Post report explained, a Oct. 22, 2001, memo from Treasury economic policy aide Kent Smetters to O’Neill said Moynihan backed a Social Security restructuring plan that would layer small personal investment accounts on top of the existing Social Security system rather than diverting taxes from the system.
In other words, he wasn’t on board with Bush’s plan at all — but that hasn’t stopped the White House from using his name to advance their scheme. Shameless.