House GOP anxious to help Dems with Social Security

April 25, 2005

For months, the Republican strategy on the Hill was simple and logical when it came to Social Security privatization: the Senate goes first. If I were a House Republican (I know, strains the imagination, doesn’t it?), this would be a non-negotiable facet to any plan.

After all, why should the House stick its neck out? House members must realize that passing any plan through the Senate is a far more difficult task. If the House GOP went first, and forced all of its members to vote on a very controversial privatization scheme with minimal public support, it would all be for naught if the bill got bottled up in the Senate. Going into the 2006 cycle, which will probably be tough enough for House Republicans, an up-or-down vote on privatizing Social Security could literally put the entire chamber in play.

Which is why it’s stunning to see so many House conservatives welcome such an arrangement.

Some House Republicans are asking their leaders for a shift in Social Security strategy, arguing that the House should move first on legislation that creates private accounts, instead of waiting for action from the Senate, where Republican leaders are unsure they can pass such a bill.

“At least among my conservatives, there is a growing sense that the House should lead on creating a version of Social Security reform that reflects Republican priorities,” said Rep. Mike Pence, Indiana Republican and chairman of the Republican Study Committee.

“We’re pressing our leaders,” said Rep. Joe Pitts, Pennsylvania Republican. “Some of us feel we should go ahead and move on it and not wait for the Senate.” […] “They need a push,” Rep. Sam Johnson, Texas Republican, said of Republican senators who have been discussing options other than private accounts.

I’ve been working under the assumption that House Republicans were wrong, but not crazy. Now I’m not so sure.

There’s almost no upside to this strategy, which makes me wonder why they’re doing it. Johnson and House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Bill Thomas are reportedly “fed up” with the Senate, which he called “dysfunctional.” That’s fine, but does that mean the House should be the first chamber to walk the plank and assume all the risk? On purpose?

Here’s the way these House Republicans think it could play out: the House will take up privatization, hold hearings, and pass a bill despite massive Dem opposition and significant GOP defections. Senate Republicans will use this impetus to move forward with their own plan. Even if the Senate can’t follow through, the GOP will blame Dems for failing to cooperate when the 2006 elections roll around.

Of course, the Dem response, to borrow a phrase, is bring…it…on. The more Social Security remains on the front burner, and drives mid-term elections, the better. It’s as if significant segments of the GOP caucus are unaware of the fact that Americans overwhelmingly oppose privatization. I can only hope no one shows them a poll to dissuade them of such a notion.

If Dems were writing up a plan to boost their political prospects, this would probably be near the top, if it weren’t dismissed as being too good to be true. Dems should do everything possible to encourage House Republicans to “follow their instincts” and pursue this approach as aggressively as possible.

I wonder if the plan isn’t to waste as much time as possible with all this, which makes it more difficult for Democrats to forge a positive agenda. As much as I agree with the Dems’ approach on this, their ability to punish the GOP with it is somewhat in doubt. The longer the centerpiece of the Democrat agenda is “save SocSec” the harder it is for Dems to figure out what their agenda aside from SocSec actually is. Or so the theory might go.

  • Look at the evil shit they’ve already passed while everyone was staring at SS reform. The Bankruptcy Reform Scam, Estate Tax Repeal… It’s the Grand Distraction.

  • The Republicans have decided to exactly replicate the Democratic position going into the the 1994 election substituting a party line vote on enormously unpopular SS reform for Hilarycare and providing Delay as the poster boy for House ethics.

    I can only conclude that they are involved in a Poli Sci experiment to determine if the Contract with America actually played a significant role in the Dems loss of 100 seats. If the Republicans lose more than 100 seats we can conclude that the Dems spontaneously combusted while if they lose only a few Newt is vindicated.

  • I think they are really crazy. They’ve grabbed the third rail and won’t let go. They think they can just keep trying, reframing and renaming it, until they hit on a theme that strikes a chord. it worked for them with the war. The difference is that the majority of America has finally seen past the brand into the heart of the beast. I hope they keep this issue at the front of their agenda. I like that lovely aroma of self fried republicans.

  • Concur with other comments: the social security privatization scheme is one part distraction, one part public relations (they really do want to kill it, but subtly, so now one knows that’s what they’re doing), and one part big payout (gotta aid their allies in the financial sector).

    Dems could readily market their own “Contract with America.” Essentially, it would be merely another way of describing social security.

    • Comments are closed.