Terms of Surrender
From Bloomberg ...
Prospects that the U.S. Congress will pass an overhaul of Social Security this year have vanished, leaving Republicans to debate how best to walk away from the centerpiece of President George W. Bush's second-term domestic agenda.Lawmakers in the House and Senate said a comprehensive proposal had no chance of being acted on this year, even though Republican leaders such as House Speaker Dennis Hastert, House Majority Leader Tom DeLay and Representative Roy Blunt haven't publicly abandoned the effort.
The coda, isn't it?
Can we all take a moment to listen to the beautiful sound?
Advertisement
Comments (23)
A great win and one that America needs to be reminded of. "We saved Social Security when George Bush and the Republicans in Congress wanted to eliminate it, who do you want running the country?"
September 15, 2005 12:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Great win; this way me and other working people my age can keep paying ever-increasing portions of our ever-decreasing incomes to support retired executives in the luxury to which they are accustomed.
September 15, 2005 12:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
sadly, this is only one victory. these people will be back to try again and again and again: they hung in forever to try to kill the estate tax and they finally did.
we get about 30 seconds to feel good, but we must rebuild the constituency for social security, lest the social security killers sneak destruction through some dark night.
September 15, 2005 12:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
SamChevre, apparently you didn't learn anything from the entire social security debate, such as it was. i urge you to undertake some remedial education before embarassing yourself again.
September 15, 2005 12:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
It was a great win howard. I agree with you, and to use a military analogy, we won the first battle but not the war. The republicans will regroup and try again, with even more ferocity. But we should celebrate this victory...we were greatly outnumbered in Congress and won this battle decisively.
Kudos to Josh for being out front in this battle...
September 15, 2005 12:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
No time for codas now; w have to make sure that this cudgel is used in every House and Senate race in 2006 to nail the flip-flopping Republicans who ran away from their principles on this issue, on budget restraint, on national security, on homeland security.
Keep bashing them with it until they give -- and then we can bury the foul idea forever.
September 15, 2005 1:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, it was a great win, libertine, no question, but as josh just posted separately, it's gotta be built on, not savored as an end in and of itself.
September 15, 2005 1:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't think we can rest on our laurels yet. Bush looked like he had lost on ANWR as well if I recall. I don't think we'll be out of the woods until January 2008. Bill Thomas is still skulking around talking about sneaking it through the House w/ partial privatization and a "retirement security" bill in the Senate w/o priv. and then giving us full privatization in committee. Also the article you quote from says they are still considering going ahead with the scheme to put the current surplus into private accounts, and even stupider idea. I don't trust these people as far as I could throw them, and I think this may be a strategic move to make us drop our guard.
Carl
September 15, 2005 1:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
leaving Republicans to debate how best to walk away
We don't leave Republicans to "walk away."
We nail them for this. Unrelenting punishment.
Figuratively speaking, of course.
Add this to the list of failed Republican ideas that Democrats must remind the voters of every chance they goet...
PS, to echo others, this success would not have happened without the good work of Josh and Company. Kudos.
September 15, 2005 1:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Howard,
I learned a lot from the debate; I learned that Bush's plan would make things worse, and I'm glad it was defeated.
That doesn't, however, change the underlying reality. Fifty years ago, my grandfather was paying 3% of his income to FICA; he was easily able to buy a house and support a family of 6 on one income, and got a good pension when he retired. Today, I'm paying 15% of my income to FICA; I can't afford to buy a house, I am extremely unlikely to get a pension, and I certainly can't support a family of 6 on my income. Meanwhile, I see people who own a nice house, and a nice vacation house, and have a generous pension, getting payments from Social Security; I don't see that as in any way reasonable.
September 15, 2005 1:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
We don't leave Republicans to "walk away."
We nail them for this. Unrelenting punishment.
Figuratively speaking, of course.
Add this to the list of failed Republican ideas that Democrats must remind the voters of every chance they goet...
AMEN cscs...
And nail 'em on all issues and keep on nailing them. The failure of the fed's response to Katrina, the Iraq War, the attempted gutting of social security, the Bankruptcy bill, ethics...everything.
They are playing hardball with us yet we are playing the accomodating opposition to them. Our winning this fight over social security privitazation is proof that when we stand up and fight we win!!!!
September 15, 2005 2:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sam,
This follow-up is more clear; you gotta admit your first terse comment could easily be interpreted as a typical wing-nut repsonse in favor of Bush's privitaztion three card monte scam.
September 15, 2005 2:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Josh, you have earned our applause for your leadership on the crucual issue of Social Security. You inspired me to become an activist and local expert on the subject . I am pleased that it may be off the table for the moment. There does, however, remain some needed fine-tuming. Not an impending crisis, but some adjustments should be made.
However, I am afraid that we've only won a skirmish in what will probably be a continuing war. To that end, I would propose that, along with the celebratory elbow-bending, that we conduct an 'after-action' debriefing. How is it that privatization could be defeated and other changes such as the bankruptcy changes could not be defeated?
To start with, the proposed SS change depended on assumptions that 1) everyone was greedy; 2) everyone knew Social Security was supposed to work just like a 401(k); 3) everyone just knew that stock market investment was reliable and don't forget the "power of compound interest"; and 4) those 55 and over could be kept out of the argument by promising that their benefits would not be changed.
Well, all four assumptions were dead wrong. Not everyone is greedy. Most want a security net rather than the insecurity of privatization. Social Security is not an investment plan; it is an insurance plan that covers disability and survivors as well. The market shock of 2001ff was still on everyone's headsup list. The stock market showed that it involves real risk. The slow recovery of the Bush market was also a factor. Finally, senior citiizens opposed the plan, not because it hurt them, but because it hurt their children and grandchildren.
The Bush plan was flawed from the beginning. Passage was dependent upon really bamboozling the people. When things can't be sold on their merits, this administration misleads everyone into ignoring the facts. [Ignoring the facts works for them, why doesn't it for everyone?] It was possible for the opponents to gather a good factual case which everyone could understand.
The effort so many put into the opposition along with the near complete Democratic unity were the keys to success. Although I know the arguments which prevented Democratic counter proposals, I'm not sure that would work the next time. We can't always be the party that just says, "No!"
AARP joined the opposition vigorously because they were so sharply criticized for their support of the drug program. It was essential that they either opposed the changes in Social Security or kept on the sidelines. If their voice had been added to that of the US Chamber of Commerce, the bill would have passed.
Now, why did the bankruptcy bill go through? Is it that bankruptcy bears such a stigma that no one would really fight for it? The issue was framed so that its purpose was to stop people who were using the bankruptcy out to avoid paying for extravagant lifestyles. People don't really like that and the real facts were difficult to present.
I don't think that it was a bill that the Democrats in DC took seriously. Most of them didn't know or believe the facts about the bill. I don't think that the Democrats saw a big constituency for the principle.
One of the Bush techniques has been to overwhelm the opposition with many, many changes. The Democrats can't get organized to fight many of them so lots of regressive legislation goes through.
How many other things went through while Democrats were involved in fighting off privatization?
September 15, 2005 2:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Meanwhile, I see people who own a nice house, and a nice vacation house, and have a generous pension, getting payments from Social Security
Back in the day, working people used to be able to afford houses. My have things changed.
The problems you cite have much less to do with SS than, for example, artificially high housing prices, corporate giveaways and tax cuts for millionaires, as well as a much different global economy than it was back then.
September 15, 2005 3:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
The Hill also has an article on SS.
The link is to a Daily Kos diary ( The Hill is subscription only )
A couple of exerpts, more at the link.
.September 15, 2005 4:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sam, it is part of the method used by the Bush gang to focus the blame of people's problems on programs they want to destroy such as Social Security.
Social Security, unemployment insurance and public schools are the best programs for the middle class.
It would help if you would do a Social Security search in the TPM search engine for this site. It is on the right.
Social Security is a better program than the Republicans would have you believe. It is good enough that I want if for my grandchildren and children and myself.
First, you get a 100% match from your employer. You actually pay 6.2% contribution for Social Security on your earnings up to $90,000. You also pay a percentage for Medicare on all earnings. You said they take 15% for Social Security, but you are including your employers match and Medicare. If Social Security and Medicare was done away with today, it is unlikely that your employer would increase your pay by 7.5%.
What you pay into the FICA (Federal Insurance Contribution Act) isn't really a tax. It is a contribution. We pay into FICA from the first pay check until the last. By paying in, we are insuring ourselves in case we become disabled and paying for a dependent care insurance that will pay our children a monthly check if we die, before they reach eighteen.
We also build up credits for our retirement when we pay into FICA. Think of it as an insurance, which it is in a way. When you pay your life insurance premium, you don't worry about who is redeeming or filing for life insurance of your insurance company today. You just want it to be there, when it is needed, by your family. Think of Social Security in the same way. That is why the Bush gang keep sending the message "It won't be there for you"
We all have the responsibilty to see that it is there for the younger generation. Surely, we can fix a 23% shortfall by 2042.
Those who are drawing Social Security have been paying into the system for about 50 years and have built up credits to use when they retire.
The baby boomers have paid extra to cover the extra cost of so many of them retiring. That is the surplus that we loaned to the government that Bush is trying to say is worthless IOUs.
We let them increase the full retirement age to 67, too. We lose almost 25% of our monthly benefit if we retire at 62.
Social Security is a different animal than a 401k. But the returns are good if you become disabled, or you die while your children are young, and when you retire. Social Security works because we pay no profit to anyone.
I know where you are coming from, seeing those draw Social Security who seem to have more than you. But if they didn't get Social Security, many of them would lose everything they have. If you have parents and grandparents, you will be more likely to inherit if they have Social Security.
I remember having to pay Social Security, when the week lasted longer than our paycheck. Part of that problem was low wages.
Housing will have to come down or wages will have to go up eventually. The Bush gang have gotten us in a mess. They keep interest too low and that helps the market, but pushes prices up on housing. People are qualifying for loans they can't afford.
My daughter pays $300 a week for day care for 3 children, she has been priced out of the housing market. Another daughter recently sold a house. Most of the profit was taken by the real estate and the bank broker charges.
Usually buying is better than renting, but at this time, a person is probably better off to rent. Katrina, globilization and rebuilding Iraq has pushed up the cost of everything used in building. By the time you buy and pay bank closing charges of 5% and pay yearly for insurance and property taxes, you are not losing all that much in equity. Eventually there will be so many houses that prices will have to come down. Also, many will lose their homes because of the Bush policies on bankruptcies etc.
You might consider buying a lot on the edge of town and paying on it. Eventually you can trade that in on a home.
I would suggest renting a decent place as cheaply as you can and putting any extra money in a 401k at least up to the match of your employer. You can withdraw from a 401k for a house down payment.
The elderly are not being greedy when they draw their Social Security, they have paid dearly for it, just as you are now.
I hope this helps you understand where those who are for Social Security are coming from.
Clay Shaw, republican Senator, worked hard to get a bill passed that you can work and draw Social Security. He is drawing Social Security while we pay him a large salary, promise him a good retirement and pay the expenses of the government TSP.
Social Security was never meant to support wealthy people who are not retired and not disabled. That is what you should focus on. That is ridiculous and how he is getting by with it is beyond me.
September 16, 2005 4:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
May I suggest tying this to the coming debate on the so called "Fair Tax" Every time one of them brings it up, remind people of where that person stood on SocSec.
dc
September 16, 2005 4:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
Jim:
Unfortunately, the bankrupcy bill had a lot to do with democrats like Joe Biden, who I plan on reminding people for years to come about his hand in this.
I believe that what has happened in NOLA is going to precipitate what has been developing in the US economy since Bush fiscal policies and those of the Fed* started to have their effect. Democrats need to prepare for this and have ideas that will get us out of the mess that Bush has created. They need to remind people of Roosevelt, and yes Clinton, and how things started to work when they were in charge.
*Adding extra accomodation to account for huge tax cuts. This in turn has led to the real estate bubble.
dc
September 16, 2005 5:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
Just one last comment for me. A lot of people are remarking on Josh Marshall's effort in all of this, and how this victory would probably not of happened without him. That is at least my opinion.
Think of what this actually means to you personally.
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/contribute.html
September 16, 2005 5:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
Re: Now, why did the bankruptcy bill go through?
Few people think they will ever go bankrupt (and for the most part they are right). Everyone thinks he will retire someday.
September 16, 2005 6:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
JonF,
Good point. Growing old is unavoidable except by early demise; bankruptcy is much less common.
September 16, 2005 10:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
Dave,
Joe Biden's vote disappointed me too. But as someone reminded me, "How could a Delaware senator not support the bankruptcy bill?" Then I remembered the destination of my credit card payments. The credit card companies got to a lot of Democratic legislators.
I agree with your concern about the magnitude of the fiscal problems facing us. It could lead to another 1929-style depression.
Another issue which is apocalyptic is the day that we finally recognize that petroleum is no longer available in sufficient quantities to support our SUV commuter lifestyle. Just think how the value of suburban McMansions will fall - same for the rest of urban sprawl. The only way to avoid it is to lay the foundations now for alternative energy.
September 16, 2005 10:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry that's Roll Call not The Hill
September 17, 2005 5:59 AM | Reply | Permalink