He’s still talking about privatizing Social Security?

Earlier this month, House Ways and Means Social Security Subcommittee Chairman Jim McCrery (R-La.) raised a few eyebrows when he told a conference of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce that he’d like to see lawmakers take up Social Security [tag]privatization[/tag] again next year. Apparently, the White House is on the same page.

President George W. Bush, in private conversation, is talking about trying to revive his tax and Social Security reform proposals after the 2006 elections.

[tag]Bush[/tag] emphasized those two issues after his 2004 re-election victory, but neither made progress. He campaigned nationwide in 2005 for [tag]Social Security[/tag] personal accounts but never proposed a specific bill. His tax reform did not get beyond recommendations of a presidential commission.

If Democrats gain control of the House in this year’s elections, Bush’s tax and Social Security proposals will face a cold reception in a House Ways and Means Committee headed by Rep. Charles Rangel.

Cold reception?” Bush’s campaign to privatize Social Security was his most embarrassing domestic debacle. Even Republicans took one look at what the White House wanted to do and started running the other way.

And yet, the issue is still lingering — and it’s worth taking a moment to consider why.

In June, the president, in reference to his Social Security plan, said, “If we can’t get it done this year, I’m going to try next year. And if we can’t get it done next year, I’m going to try the year after that, because it is the right thing to do.”

Shortly thereafter, White House Chief of Staff Josh Bolten “stressed his interest” in paving the way for a renewed push on Social Security.

From every angle, this seems more than foolish. As a matter of policy, there’s no way privatization could pass — it costs too much, delivers too little, and would make a difficult fiscal challenge much, much worse. As a matter of politics, the president’s plan pushed his post-election approval ratings into a downward spiral from which Bush has never recovered.

So why would the administration talk about it, repeatedly, and leak word to Novak that the president is anxious to “revive” the effort next year? I’m just throwing this out there, but what if the Bush gang would rather the Dems attack Social Security privatization than have the Dems hit the GOP on national security issues? Isn’t it at least possible that the administration is quietly but consistently mentioning Social Security privatization as a way to throw Dems off their game?

If Dems take the bait, the Republicans will say, “Social Security was so 2005. Why don’t the Dems want to talk about national security issues?”

Maybe there’s another explanation for it, but I can’t think of it. Dems are right to stay focused on Iraq, Rumsfeld, and national security. Running to domestic issues — where Dems already have a big advantage — didn’t work in ’02 or ’04, and it probably wouldn’t work this year either.

Eyes on the prize, Dems, eyes on the prize.

Why does George Bush stay in Iraq? The answer to this is the same as the answer to the question this post asks.

The definition of insanity is to keep doing the same thing that hasn’t worked, in the expectation things will change.

George W. Bush, not only a certifiable moron and incompetent, but a nutcase too.

But then, farrightnutcase is one word, isn’t it???

  • The solution is pretty easy. Raise the FICA taxable amount to equal the salary of a U.S. Congressman, and peg it to their salary. Then raise the minimum and regular retirement age on a regular schedule (not just once) and re-evaluation every off year (2009, 2011, etc.) You’ll find you can put off the retirement age increases and keep Social Security solvent very easily.

  • Lance- why not make it simpler? Put the tax on TOTAL income, regardless of the amount… That would make it not only solvent, but profitable for the government… there is no damn reason that a CEO making $50 million a year off of the backs of his $6.50/hr workers can’t help contribute something to the system.

  • AH but they can whisper about it and appease to the conservatives that obssess over it and look good without, you know, having to actually do anything. Its a plus all the way around.

  • I think the reason why W still wants to talk about Social Security is because he has so few things memorized, and he has that one down. If he loses Social Security as a talking point, then what des he say? He will have to memorize some other script, pick another issue, and that’s hard for him.

  • I figure the corporations who benefit from the war and would benefit from privatization have pegged Bush’s post-presidential bonus to his performance on these issues.

    27 months left. Time for 3 9/11’s on his watch.

  • Im with Castor and Lance. This is SO easy to fix it’s laughable. The first really ridiculous part is that the cap is near $90,000, which means, if you get rich, dont worry about having to subsidize anyone, even though you can afford it so much easier than the people who are doing the paying. Silly – but then again, that would make our tax system more progressive, and you know thats anathema to this administration. Also, the retirement age doesnt reflect the reality of trends in the workplace, and the inclination for older people to be healthier and work longer.

  • Talking about Social Security and stupidity, Sen. Rick Santorum is still for “personal accounts” (better known as “privitization”). Just see this Sunday’s transcript (pages 6 & 7) from Santorum’s MTP debate with Bob Casey: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14568263/page/6/ . And Santorum represent Pennsylvania–which is only second to Florida in the number of retirees–unbelievably dumb!

    Well, you can give Santorum credit for one thing: He doesn’t let political reality get in the way of his ideology.

  • I’d have to say that they went into their reign with a certain limited bag of tricks so they have to keep beating the same dead horses because they literally have nothing else to offer.

    They’re like demented children who think that by simply repeating the same words over and over they can shape reality to their own vision, no matter how impossible it is to attain it.

    When all you hire are incompetent hacks and partisan airheads to run the show, how suprising is it that this kind of broken record keeps recurring? They’re living in a fantasyland of their own making and will never stop until they’re literally thrown out the front door.

    So hurry up, November. We need to get the process started.

  • I have read this is already a done deal. Bush made it so in a signing statement and it will start being phased in AFTER the November elections..the same way the privatization of Medicaid is being phased in, in Jan. 2007. You won’t see any announcements of the Jan. changes to Medicaid and Medicare prior to November..I’ve already been notified of the Medicaid cuts that are forcing all the disabled, elderly, poor into FOR PROFIT HMO’S beginning in January 2007..substandard care doesn’t lower costs, it increases them as people become sicker from it. But then if you do not allow the diagnostic tests, treatments you can kill them off quicker and THAT saves money.

  • Bush is trying to turn the U.S. into the social equivalent of Baghdad. He’s making a secure Green Zone for his rich friends while leaving the rest to face horrifying realities without any government protection.

  • “Lance- why not make it simpler? Put the tax on TOTAL income, regardless of the amount…” – Castor Troy

    I’m just suggesting the fix, not proposing the radical agenda 😉

  • “He’s making a secure Green Zone for his rich friends while leaving the rest to face horrifying realities without any government protection.” – petorado

    But at least in the American Green Zone (aka, Fairfax County Virginia and Montgomery County, Maryland) the rich have to suffer from traffic congestion 😉

  • It’s just like the new legislation to legalize the illegal wiretapping – a way to legitimize what is already being done. The 2007 budget has allocations for creating private accounts out of social security contributions. Check it out. He does things first then does the CYA legislation…

  • Not hard to figure them out. Remember, Cheney said “we won, now its our turn”.
    The right wingers have hated social security since FDR and are determined to end it.
    This issue will not go away and will be ‘back-doored” in if necessary. Bush has no ideas, he’s Prime Minister Cheney’s stooge.

  • When Bush first proposed privatizing Social Security, the strategy memo that came out from the White House led off by stating that this was their first opportunity to do something about SS in “over 70 years.” What happened 70 years ago? That was when SS was created. These guys represent a wing of the Republican party that has been trying to eliminate SS since it first began, and to roll the clock back to 1900.

    In fact, you can make a circumstantial case that at least part of the reason we are in Iraq has to do with eliminating Social Security. In 1999, Bush gave an interview to Mickey Herskowitz, a family friend who reported for the Houston Chronicle. In that interview, he mused about his father and Iraq. In that interview, he said: “One of the keys to being seen as a great leader is to be seen as commander in chief. My father had all this political capital built up when he drove the Iraqis out of Kuwait and he wasted it. If I have a chance to invade, if I had that much capital, I’m not going to waste it. I’m going to get everything passed that I want to get passed and I’m going to have a successful presidency.”

    After the 2004 election, you could hear a distinct echo of this when Bush said in his first press conference: “And it’s one of the wonderful — it’s like earning capital. You asked, do I feel free. Let me put it to you this way: I earned capital in the campaign, political capital, and now I intend to spend it. It is my style. That’s what happened in the — after the 2000 election, I earned some capital. I’ve earned capital in this election — and I’m going to spend it…”

    First proposal out of the gate: eliminate Social Security. That’s where he spent his imaginary capital.

    I think there were a lot of reasons for invading Iraq, more reasons than there were people involved in the decision. They all had their own collection of motives that converged in a perfect storm of nastiness. But I am also convinced that at least part of what passed through Bush’s tiny little brain (and Cheney’s too) was that it would be a splendid little war, easily won just like Daddy’s, but unlike Daddy when his approval ratings went through the roof he would use that capital to Get Things Done, starting with that damn communist Roosevelt program Social Security.

    But try proving it.

  • What they are doing is getting people to work at a low-wage, no-benefit McJob until they are 80 and drop dead. Its part of owning the resources of the world, including the people, and getting rid of financially inefficient excess populaiton. The U.S. Fascists are in the lead, but regretably are not the only ones. Justice can not be done in the world until the Bushes and Cheneys of the world are convicted and sentenced in Nurenburg style Crimes against Humanity hearings.

    Some of us knew what was going on in the 80s when Chamber of Commerce types were supporting Claude Pepper’s you have a right to work no matter how old you are plans.

  • “My father had all this political capital built up when he drove the Iraqis out of Kuwait and he wasted it.” – Boy George II

    You know, I said the same thing about GHWB at the time. Political capital is something you spend, and if you do it right, you get more. You can’t bank it, the bank fees are hideous and it will be gone in no time.

    Of course, 2004 was not really that much of a flood of Political Capital for Boy George II. But his handlers tell him that perception is reality in politics, so he is going to say so. I just wish he’d put his capital against comprehensive immigration reform and not waste it on stupid solutions to Social Security.

    Of course, a lot of Boy George II’s capital went to the Medicare Drug Benefit. Remember the donut hole? Well, it seems that a vast majority of Americans will never be able to cross the hole. First, the calculation of how much you spend to get to the edge is different from the calculation of how much you have to spend to get across, so the hole is bigger. Second, few people have the means to actually make much distance across the hole. Third, the calculations are reset to zero on January 1st. Which means that even if you were getting money from the Government in one year, you’ll lose it starting the next.

    Americans, just too dumb for their own good.

  • I think your analysis is right-on Mr. Carpetbagger. Sure, the GOP would love to eliminate social security, and would happily accept privitization as an incremental step to those ends. But they really want to keep Congress in 2006 even more and any discussions of SS “reform” are just a nice juicy distraction. Plus, any Democratic Party opposition to SS “reform” puts the Dems in the position of defending the status quo; that defense doens’t reasonate well with the “had enough” or “time for a change” theme that Dems do want voters to feel as they head into the voting booth.

    Let the Dems dismiss this latest distraction with a no-more-than-15-word talking point. That ALL Dems use when the topic comes up. Ideally it would be humorous, but more importantly it needs to be short and easy to remember. Maybe something like:

    “Social Security reform? There they go again, trying to fix something that’s not broken while they do nothing to fix Iraq or secure our ports.”

    or

    “Social Security is great. Iraq is not. Our ports and power plants are left unprotected just like the humvees in Iraq.”

    or

    “My grandpa used to say ‘if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it’. Social Security is not broken. Iraq is. Congress is. Lets fix what’s broken.”

    Dismiss the distraction, refocus on Iraq and homeland security.

  • Comments are closed.