Feeling A Little Better on Social Security

by Chris Bowers, Thu May 26, 2005 at 02:58:24 PM EDT

I was definitely worried about Social Security yesterday, but seeing this post at Talking Points Memo about a speech Bob Rubin gave to the House Dmeocratic Caucus makes me feel a whole lot better:: The headline topic was Social Security. And his message was unequivocal: Democrats would be fools to fall into the trap of putting forward their own concrete plan on Social Security under current circumstances.

In discussing this question, one must always come back to the simple fact that the Democrats especially shouldn't come up with a concrete plan when the president himself still hasn't put one forward.

But setting that significant matter aside, Rubin is unquestionably right. And it's important for Democrats to hear this from someone like Rubin whose stature within Democratic ranks is unique.(...)

That has to be the case as long as Republicans are still sticking to their principles of private accounts and sharp benefit cuts for the middle class. And those are their principles -- quite explicitly, in fact.

Add to this the fact that the president is clocking in at under 30% support on Social Security and most Americans now understand that he wants to dismantle the program and the whole thing really becomes a no-brainer.

In fact, Dems should really start making the point now that they are the ones who stopped President Bush from phasing out Social Security this year.

Be loud, be proud.

No plan until the President has one. No private, crave-out accounts. No benefit cuts. That is the line all Democrats must toe.

Tags: Democrats (all tags)

Comments

11 Comments

Sort by

permalink

Our Social Security plan is the Social Security p

Our Social Security plan is the Social Security plan of FDR. The system works and it is in the best financial shape it has ever been in. Of course the biggest threat to social security is the fiscal destruction and deficits of the Bush regime. If the Banks of China and Japan ever stopped buying treasury bills or if something happened to affect the stability of the treasury bills that Social Security would be really in crisis but that would be in the middle of a global economic melt down. We just can't afford to trust the Washington Republican's dubious economic priorities to even touch Social Security to tweak it anytime soon. Sure we need to raise the cap above 90k but we are not going to even touch that as long as Frist and DeLay are running the Congress.

by Democracy For Puget Sound Dot Com 2005-05-26 03:23PM | 0 recs

permalink

We have a plan

Eliminate the $90k cap.

Of course Delay and Co. won't back it, but if we keep saying it, they can't claim Democrats don't have a plan.

by owenz 2005-05-26 03:50PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: We have a plan

Eliminate the cap and reduce the payroll tax rate.

by Painter2004 2005-05-26 07:25PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: We have a plan

Actually, if we get to that state where we want to fiddle with the structure of the system, I'd uncap it at the top but add a new cap at the bottom. Say, no FICA tax on the first $10K or $15K - whatever makes financial sense when balanced out by uncapping the top. The reason is, it would suddenly make the vast majority of jobs significantly less expensive for companies to create. By loading all of the cut onto the bottom, it ensures that every single job benefits from the full cut. It would be a significant boost to economic growth, much better than any of Bush's income tax cuts.

But not now. Not when the Republicans are trying to destroy social security, while it is running a huge surplus. We beat them off, sticking to social security as is. Then we tackle the real problems: the deficits created by the income tax cuts, and after that, medicare. After we have a sustainably sane budget, then we can get around to fiddling with social security.

Unless we enter another recession. Then we might want to fiddle with FICA as I described above, purely for job creation reasons.

by cos 2005-05-26 10:00PM | 0 recs

permalink

A few defenders are getting cocky

Some people are taking a hard fought and ongoing attempt to defend Social Security and trying to transform into some attempt to hijack it into some vehicle to restore progressivity into the overall tax system. You all need to take a quick shot of STFU. We win if we draw a bright line around Social Security solvency, we lose if we allow it to be brought into the overall debate about General Fund deficits.

We don't need an elimination of the cap. We don't need to finance this worker paid system with some contribution from Capital. We don't need to give them some moral claim to Social Security.

Social Security is ours. The last fucking thing we need is the rich making the claim that they are subsidizing it. Raising the cap turns Social Security from a benefit we earned and paid for into welfare.

We have a plan. Its called beating the economic numbers of Low Cost. If you don't understand the terminology, if you don't undersand the implications of 3.5% productivity reported yesterday, then get a damn education on the real numbers at play here.

Raising the cap is not the plan for people who know anything at all about the real numbers. Visit some economic sites, get on a first name basis with Brad and Max and Mark and pgl. Or you can take a dramatic step and actually read the Trustees' Reports at SSA Reports . But this kind of Johnny come lately, puerile tax the rich instead of educating yourselves on the numbers crap is just pissing off the people who have been doing the lifting on Social Security from day one.

Social Security is not broke: by the Numbers

by Bruce Webb 2005-05-27 01:26AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: A few defenders are getting cocky

As long as you keep the mantra that a worker pays for his own Social Security through the payroll tax there will comparisons with private accounts. This just feeds Bush. How many times have you heard people say,"If I put that money in the bank I could earn a lot more than Social Security"? I've heard it plenty. It is a false comparison.

Also, you say "welfare" like it was a dirty word. Aren't free public highways welfare? Aren't research tax credits welfare? You're sounding suspiciously like a Libertarian to me. I don't mean to insult you, but that's how it sounds to me.

by antiHyde 2005-05-27 07:48AM | 0 recs

permalink

Rubin Needs to Be Souljahed

One interesting thing about Rubin's talk that seems to have slipped by is that it illustrates how out of touch elite Democrats are on economic policy.

Take this, for instance:

Rubin . . . counseled congressional Democrats against engaging Republicans on specifics. He urged them instead to cast the debate in terms of principles, with opposition to deficit spending as their guiding conviction.

No, Bob, "opposition to deficit spending" is not our guiding conviction. Our guiding conviction is to ensure economic security in retirement to all Americans. I'll be damned if we balance the budget on the backs of retirees, but I'm not so sure that Rubin and his ilk are.

Then there's this:

Rubin said that Social Security ranks third behind deficit reduction and Medicare reform as the most important economic policy issue facing the country.

No, Bob, I'd say a dysfunctional labor market (stagnant wages, slow job creation), 43 million Americans without health insurance and millions more without security of insurance, and excessive dependence on Middle East oil are just three problems that I would put ahead of deficit reduction as problems that Democrats ought to tackle.

If we can reduce the deficit while doing all of these things (and others), fine, but let's not sacrifice our broader economic and social agenda for zero deficits just to please a few Wall Street elites.

by tgeraghty 2005-05-26 04:32PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Rubin Needs to Be Souljahed

That might be merited if there was any chance of Rubin being taken seriously as far as developing actual policy. At this point it sounds like a pretty effective talking point to criticize Bush's budgets. If it makes Bob happy as an economist to make deficits the number one priority, so what?

Rubin said that Social Security ranks third behind deficit reduction and Medicare reform as the most important economic policy issue facing the country.

Now that's pretty damn stupid. Social Security shouldn't even be on the radar as an economic policy issue. Bob usually sounds pretty thoughtful. It's possible Bob has an agenda I am not aware of. If he can get Bill Clinton and Bob Wexler to STF up about Social Security, let him ramble.

For the moment, if Bob Rubin can rein in the malevolent moderates who Lindsay Graham was suggesting were ready to compromise on Social Security, let him spout and bloviate all he wants to.

let's not sacrifice our broader economic and social agenda for zero deficits just to please a few Wall Street elites.

Right on and amen. It's very difficult to see how any Republican is ever going to be able to pretend to be a deficit hawk ever again. As far as I'm concerned, budget deficits are a great talking point, but there is no reason to presume that a Democratic president will be able to eliminate the Bush deficit in a single term.

Look how long it took to recover from the Reagan deficits. If it wasn't for Bush 43 having the good sense and courage to raise taxes, Clinton wouldn't have been able to record the first balanced budget in about 40 years.

All we need to fix the budget deficit is twenty or thirty years of fiscally responsible Democratic presidents and the American economy will be just fine.

by Gary Boatwright 2005-05-26 05:12PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Rubin Needs to Be Souljahed

I agree that anything Rubin does to stiffen Democrats' backbones of Social Security is a good thing, regardless of his ultimate intentions.

I disagree, though, that Rubin is not taken seriously in terms of formulating Democratic economic policy. To the contrary, he is the go-to guy for Democratic economic policy; he was Kerry's primary economic policy advisor, and Kerry's proposals were straight out of the Rubin playbook (i.e. focus on deficit reduction ahead of everything else).

by tgeraghty 2005-05-26 08:19PM | 0 recs

permalink

About Lindsey Graham's comments

Does anyone else think Lindsey Graham made his "watch us do Social Security" comment as a plea for Bush not to smack him with a newspaper?

I think Graham's brain is active enough that he can't possibly believe he's really going to push through a GOP-approved Social Security bill.

Graham isn't a total retard like some of the GOP officers corps (Hastert makes me yearn for Gingrich).

What will be interesting to watch is what the GOP plans to do if the true conservatives like Graham keep bucking the GOP power grab.

At what point will they say enough is enough?

After all, Graham seems to be pretty consistent on his views about abuse of power. He stuck it to Clinton, and now he's sticking it to Bush.

Can this guy gain some sort of McCain-like aura before his party flips the fuck out and makes him walk the plank?

by jcjcjc 2005-05-26 07:23PM | 0 recs

permalink

The "plan" is to protect what we have

No private, crave-out accounts. No benefit cuts. That is the line all Democrats must toe.

And if pushed about why they don't have a "plan" the answer is that since the Republicans are in control and are hostile to Social Security the best "plan" is to defend the current system until we have the ability make any needed adjustments in a pro-Social Security environment. The Republicans are pushing a phony crisis so they can weaken Social Security now while they have the power to do so. There is no "crisis." The "plan" is to defend what we have until we can get Washington's priorities back in line with those of ordinary American's.

by Fred in Vermont 2005-05-27 02:38AM | 0 recs