"Radical Centrism" or Just Dumb?
The New America Foundation is the home to many of the best progressive minds in the country, including TPM café all-stars Mark Schmitt, Steve Clemons, Jacob Hacker, and Michael Lind (hibernating but hopefully to return some day). Unfortunately, that same institution just put out a "nonpartisan Social Security Reform plan" that would divert a share of payroll taxes into private accounts while severely cutting guaranteed benefits across all income levels.
Geez, thanks for reopening that can of worms, guys!
Without getting into all the details of the proposal, I'll just note that it requires workers to pay an additional 1.5 percent in payroll taxes while raising the ceiling on earned income subject to the payroll tax. Those two changes alone would be much more than enough to cover Social Security's projected long-term shortfall. But the authors go beyond that to reduce guaranteed benefits substantially and hope that the new accounts financed by the higher and diverted taxes will be more than enough to make up the difference.
What's the point of introducing market risk if raising the taxes alone would address Social Security's shortfall? The authors say that walling off the funds in the accounts from the rest of the government (now in the form of the existing trust funds) would "increase the likelihood that they would contribute to national saving." Hmmm, that dubious connection sounds like something that Martin Feldstein would say. And wouldn't you know it, two of the three authors of the New America report - Andrew Samwick and Jeffrey Liebman - had previously co-authored privatization plans with Feldstein. Dr. Feldstein, of course, is the supply sider whose years of privatization work essentially laid in ruins after the past year's analysis of similar plans by the Congressional Budget Office, the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, and even the Office of Management and Budget.
In any case, now the right can seize on the opportunity provided by New America to say that even a vibrant new progressive institution supports privatization. Of course, the conservative groups will never buy into a payroll tax increase. But that doesn't matter to them. New America has dutifully served their purposes.
At the outset of the New America proposal, the authors write, "the three of us - former aides to President Clinton, Senator McCain, and President Bush - did an experiment to see if we could develop a reform plan that we all could support." Please. All three (New America's Maya MacGuineas is the third) have long supported privatization. That's the kind of disingenuousness that characterizes today's conservative movement. An institution that calls itself progressive has no business behaving the same way.
At the outset of the New America proposal, the authors write, "the three of us - former aides to President Clinton, Senator McCain, and President Bush - did an experiment to see if we could develop a reform plan that we all could support."
This is instructive because it shows the current status of the political spectrum. Clinton, a centrist whose 1992 primary win was drug out to the bitter end by Jerry Brown because of Clinton's non-liberal credentials, is now a "liberal." McCain, for years one of the more conservative senators, is now a "moderate." And Bush is, well, Bush, poor man. Yet the purpose here is clearly to suggest that these three people represent the entirety of the political spectrum, and it ain't so. Maybe 2/3 of it, maybe even 4/5 of it, but there's nobody there from the real left.
December 14, 2005 1:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
If I may be (niavely) supportive: perhaps it is a ploy to get this passed the more fiscally conservaitves, only to eliminate the cuts in a year or two?
December 14, 2005 2:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
If I may be (niavely) supportive: perhaps it is a ploy to get this passed the more fiscally conservaitves, only to eliminate the cuts in a year or two?
Unfortunately, that isn't the way things work in Washington today. The more likely scenario is that someone points out how even-the-liberal-New-America-Foundation supports privatization and benefit cuts in principle, so now we're just talking about how much privatization and benefit cuts. It's the tax increase that will get quietly forgotten.
December 14, 2005 2:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Until our side begins each policy pronouncement with a critical analysis of how our plans are likely to be spun, we'll never get any better at this. Until objective analyses and a scientific search for the truth become typical of politics; until we have a rational disregard for the absurd and hackneyed mode of criticism, every toe in the political water should be poised to sense what spun malevolent use is to be made of our good intentions and the language used to communicate them.
December 14, 2005 2:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh, for puke's sake. Mark Schmitt, get your ass in here--you've got some 'splaining to do! Josh--man the battlements and explain, one more ever loving time, why it's sheerest idiocy to give the Reigning Party fodder with which to do their deviltry! New America, it's just not your job to sell us all down the river when the Other Guys are in charge of the bridge, the engine room, and the tiller. Stoopid!!!
December 14, 2005 3:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
NAF is indeed "home to many of the best progressive minds in the country." Too bad none of them worked on this proposal, e.g. . . .
"Before coming to New America, MacGuineas served as a Social Security advisor to the McCain for President campaign. She has also worked at the Brookings Institution, the Concord Coalition and on Wall Street."
Not exactly a "progressive" resumé.
December 14, 2005 3:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
To call New America "progressive" is charitable. In reality they are dead-centrist, a position they claim with pride.
Their centrist positiong is a bit of an anachronism -- a sort of DLC-style triangulation approach, "we're not left or right, we're ahead."
One can debate whether this was a sound strategy in the 1990s during the GOP counter-offensive (I think it wasn't). But in today's political climate it's just idiocy, and a recipe for things like this bullshit social security proposal.
The timing couldn't be worse, which we can chalk up to the fact that New America's people aren't exactly the sharpest political strategists. Again, I think they see this as a virtue -- that they just exist in the realm of ideas, above the partisan fray. As if such a place actually exists.
Progressives are much too kind to this organization, for reasons that aren't entirely clear.
December 14, 2005 3:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
There is already a party for people that want to tinker with Social Security. (The most successful social program in American history). It's called the Republican party.
I was looking forward to telling people next year that they should vote Dem to keep the Republicans from messing up Social Security. I guess we better come up with a new reason to vote Dem, now.
Let's see. Are we the party of gun control? Uh, no. Are we the party of pro-life? uh, no. Are we the party of keeping social security safe? Uh, no. Are we the party of getting out of Iraq? uh, no.
I guess we're the party of, "Just like the other guys, but better, somehow, but we're not sure why."
I swear, if it weren't for Republican attack ads, I wouldn't know what the Democratic Party stands for at all.
December 14, 2005 4:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
When I see a rollback of the hundreds of billions of dollars worth of tax cuts for the economic elite that have been enacted during the Bush administration, then maybe I'll be ready to talk Social Security reform.
December 14, 2005 4:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Anachronism? How so?
"One can debate whether this was a sound strategy in the 1990s during the GOP counter-offensive (I think it wasn't). But in today's political climate it's just idiocy, and a recipe for things like this bullshit social security proposal."
Sound strategy? GOP? The New America Foundation is not Democratic party affiliated group, they are a non-partisan think tank that works on policy proposals that aren't idealogically driven, but more often than not, tend to be friendlier to Democrats than the GOP. They produce the policy work they think is best for America from a position they think best 'Centrist'. It has nothing to do with the Democratic party and whether or not Centrism is a good 'strategy' for the Democratic party is quite frankly irrelevant to the New America foundation.
"The timing couldn't be worse, which we can chalk up to the fact that New America's people aren't exactly the sharpest political strategists."
They're a think tank, not a Democrat affiliated political consulting firm.
"Again, I think they see this as a virtue -- that they just exist in the realm of ideas, above the partisan fray. As if such a place actually exists."
Since they are non partisan, I suppose such a place actually does exist.
"Progressives are much too kind to this organization, for reasons that aren't entirely clear."
The reasons are perfectly clear; New America Foundation does good work.
December 14, 2005 4:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yet the purpose here is clearly to suggest that these three people represent the entirety of the political spectrum, and it ain't so. Maybe 2/3 of it, maybe even 4/5 of it, but there's nobody there from the real left.
That's because we already know the left's plan for Soc Sec:
"From each according to his means, to each according to his needs" I think it was Hillary Clinton who said it...
December 14, 2005 4:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's okay. I intend to walk into the desert about the time Jenna Bush finally checks herself into rehab for the ravages of cocaine, bulimia, or middle age, and an aging Wolf Blitzer tearfully praises her courage on CNN.
December 14, 2005 4:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
It should come as a shock to no one that ideas proposed by self-styled "Progressive" centrist wonks are not always going to appeal to self-styled "Progressive" liberals.
Why the Democrats should have to answer to the policy proposals of a centrist, non-partisan think tank is beyond me. Why not for a change do what the Republicans always do when technocratic wonks propose a solution to America's problems - ignore it.
December 14, 2005 5:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Dumb.
December 14, 2005 5:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
What really annoys me and alarms me is that given her recent tendencies, presidential candidate Hilary Clinton might endorse this proposal -- and then, it gets into the party's platform at the convention. And for what? It gains no votes in states that usually go Republican. None.
Why are centrist policy wonks even thinking about this? Do they not have enough to do?
December 14, 2005 5:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh, I believe it was Marx who said it and I believe you know that. So your reasoning process is that Social security is a Commie plot and FDR is a dirty commie and you are a genius. Another (pseudo) insightful commentary that accomplishes nothing as is your usual style.
December 14, 2005 5:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh, I believe it was Marx who said it and I believe you know that. So your reasoning process is that Social security is a Commie plot and FDR is a dirty commie and you are a genius. Another (pseudo) insightful commentary that accomplishes nothing as is your usual style.
Wrong again, I think Social Security was a good idea as a safety net, a failure as a retirement plan, and can be fixed with some privitization and actual ownership. FDR wasn't a dirty commie, actually commies aren't dirty at all, now hippies on the other hand... pee yeeew!!! The target of the tounge-in-cheek quote was the plan that the true "lefties" in America want for the Social Security plan. Raise the amount of income taxed (from each...) give it to the people who failed to plan adequately for their own retirement (to each...) see, I don't make this stuff up.
December 14, 2005 6:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm sympathetic to the idea of private accounts. At least, I'm sympathetic to the idea that somehow you need to wall of the SS surplus. How else do you do it? Al Gore got ridiculed for repeatedly saying "lockbox". Maybe that's an alternative.
But, as it is, the SS surplus already gets spent. If, in an effort to shore up SS, you raise the tax rate and the income cap - all you're doing is increasing the SS surplus. The Republicans think the deficit "as a percentage of GDP" is just fine. Give them some more money via the SS surplus, and all you're going to get is tax cuts until the deficit is back to the same percentage of GDP.
So how do you do anything today to shore up SS, that isn't really just giving the Republicans more money to play with? Private accounts, to me, are effectively a lockbox. It gets the money off the table.
I guess the only thing I don't understand is why that necessarily requires a reduction in guaranteed benefits. The one doesn't really require the other.
December 14, 2005 7:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
"...they are a non-partisan think tank that works on policy proposals that aren't idealogically driven..."
I admire the sentiment but when I hear words like these, I know it's time to hold on to my wallet.
-- -
Independent Illinois Grassroots: IllinoisDemNet.com
December 14, 2005 7:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Excellent point Luigi. I'm so tired of every drift to the far right being ratified by the Washington thinkeries as a "new progressive model". The authors also seem to make it clear their purpose was to develop a plan they "all could support", rather than a plan that is recommended by its intrinsic merits. I thought think tanks were supposed to come up with smart and independently motivated ideas, and leave it to the pols to hammer out compromises.
December 14, 2005 8:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, whatever they are, they clearly don't care about electing the centrist party (i.e. the Democrats) into office.
December 14, 2005 8:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Everything is political, too. New America aims to impact the political debate, otherwise they wouldn't exist. I'm not on the Hill so I'm not sure how effective they are at this vis a vis, say, Heritage, AEI, Brookings or the Center for American Progress. But I'm sure their funding proposals are full of language about their real-world impact on the political debate. Which means they are, or should be, aware of how their positions play out in real-world politics, non-profit/non-partisan status notwithstanding (most of the think tanks are nominally "non-partisan," you know that right?). And their social security proposal plays out in a way that is inexcusable, given that progressives had effectively closed the window of opportunity for the right to dismantle this vital program. New America has, or has just tried to, re-open the window, and they deserve every bit of thrashing they get for doing this. Now if you *want* social security to get dismantled, that's another thing, but I made the assumption that at TPM Cafe that wasn't on the agenda.
December 14, 2005 9:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
There aren't many associated with this group that I'd ever think to call Progressives, I think they'd look rather center-right anywhere in Europe.
But do they call themselves Progressives? The Center for American Progress is not the Center for American Progressives. Chicago held a Century of Progress world's fair in 1933 that did nt celebreate a century of progressive thought or a fete for the New Deal, but a century of industrial progress.
December 14, 2005 10:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
"The New America Foundation is the home to many of the best progressive minds in the country,..."
No real liberal would ever associate themselves with "centrism" as it is currently defined and practiced. Centrism and the DLC are the biggest vacuum in existence. If it talks like an R, walks like an R, VOTES like an R - it is an R even if it has a D after it name.
December 14, 2005 10:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Simple question: which problem are they trying to solve? Somebody gimme an answer 'cause I'm clueless there.
December 15, 2005 3:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
Given 2.0% productivity growth in 2005 it would have required an immediate 1.92% increase in payroll tax to fill the entire projected gap in Social Security payout. At least according to those zanies called the "Social Security Trustees" 2005 Social Security Report. We are getting way more productivity than that which means that the trend in this table is simply going to continue Changes in Trustees Projections over time. A "crisis" that recedes on average at 1.3 years per year is a crisis that will never happen.
Which facts, if God was merciful, would cause the Sarge to stop blowing smoke from both orifices. Apparently God is in a bad mood today. Wallace your day is coming, the 2006 Social Security Report is due March 31st and privatizers won't even know what hit them. Details at the Economists' blogs.
December 15, 2005 6:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
The three individual authors of this proposal are affiliated with New America, Harvard and Dartmouth. It was clearly identified as the work of those three individuals, and no more. The authors can speak for themselves. I don't need to justify it any more than Liebman's colleagues at the Kennedy School or Samwick's colleagues at Dartmouth do.
December 15, 2005 7:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
What did they 'do' that they need to be let off the hook for? did they break some sort of law?
"Claiming they are "non-ideological" is, of course, ridiculous -- everything is ideological ("centrism" probably more so than other positions)."
Fair enough; though I disagree with your appraisal of 'centrism'
"Everything is political, too. New America aims to impact the political debate, otherwise they wouldn't exist. I'm not on the Hill so I'm not sure how effective they are at this vis a vis, say, Heritage, AEI, Brookings or the Center for American Progress. But I'm sure their funding proposals are full of language about their real-world impact on the political debate."
Policy is not the same thing as politics. As for their funding proposals; I'm sure they do carry testimonials about their effecitveness at influencing public policy; donors and contributors aren't going to pour in millions of dollars into their organization just to engage in mental masterbation and amuse themselves.
"Which means they are, or should be, aware of how their positions play out in real-world politics, non-profit/non-partisan status notwithstanding (most of the think tanks are nominally "non-partisan," you know that right?)."
Yes, but 'non-partisan' organizstions like AEI, Heritage, CATO & CAP don't disguise the fact that they are conservative or liberal advocates, as can be quickly engaged by checking their list of keynote speakers, which parties their scholars have worked for and who they contribute campaign cash too. Organizations like Brookings and New America are different, as their reputation befits. Most think tanks I.E. Heritage, CATO, CAP basically specialize in pushing out work that conveniently coincides with their wealthy donors beliefs. Brookings and now the New America Foundation are primarily concerned with doing real work, Repiblican and Democratic supporters working together to produce good policy. It's a blessing to the party and a testament to the merit of the Democratic world view that most of the scholarship these organizations produce are friendly to and benefit us.
"And their social security proposal plays out in a way that is inexcusable, given that progressives had effectively closed the window of opportunity for the right to dismantle this vital program."
Like I said, New America is not a Democrat affiliated organization, their a think tank producing policy they think will benefit the country. That their social security proposal is disagreeable to liberal and anti privatization advocates is of little concern to them. Just as I'm sure oppositon from conservative advocates to their endorsement of expanding the EITC is of little concern to them as well.
"Now if you *want* social security to get dismantled, that's another thing, but I made the assumption that at TPM Cafe that wasn't on the agenda."
No I don't want social security 'dismantled' or privatized for that matter. That doesen't mean I have to consider any organization that is half heartedly in favor of minor privatization 'inexcusable.' I have full faith in my side's ability to argue against SS privatization on it's merits (Greg Anzig is my homeboy). The people who wish to chastize those for even talking about it or for (god forbid) putting it on the table for debate apparantly don't have that same confidence.
December 15, 2005 9:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
Fair enough, Mark Schmitt--point taken. Now, how about critiquing your organization's plan? Is it your view, too, that what I, as a 401(k) holder, need is a mega-Uncle Sam 401(k) account to contribute to and stake my hopes on, even as I help fund today's outgoing SSI checks--instead of preserving my own stake in our national pension insurance in case I lose my shirt in the brave new world of defined-contribution pension plans? I just can't understand what the f**k these guys think they're doing! And in case you hadn't noticec, it pisses me, and more than a few others, OFF!
December 16, 2005 7:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
That's because we already know the left's plan for Soc Sec:
"From each according to his means, to each according to his needs" I think it was Hillary Clinton who said it...
Actually, it's George W. Bush who proposed means testing Social Security. The Democratic establishment was vociferous in its opposition to this idea, and has long considered the fact that Social Security is not means tested to be one of its great strengths.
December 16, 2005 2:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Retired Army, 24 years, Republican for 23, working at a small college in Georgia, from San Francisco,lived in LA, married to a converted liberal with 2 dogs an 2 cats. Vegitarian for 16 years, my motto is "people deseve to die, animals don't."
And you can't even spell "Vegetarian" right, you lifer moron.
December 18, 2005 11:28 PM | Reply | Permalink