A Forum for Grinches and Ho-Ho-Hoes

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by sgtclub
The DEMs do not want Bush to pass SS reform, even if it excluded PRAs.

I don't believe that's true. If they could get Bush to advocate increases in taxes and reductions in benefits that would provide a long-term solution, they would be quite happy to let him solve that problem and take the heat. But they're not going to propose that as an opening response for obvious reasons. They'll let Bush build the support and then "grudgingly" go along, at least in the safe seats, and let hte no votes come from the 6 unsafe districts and in the contest senate states.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by sgtclub
I'm not talking about the critisism, I'm talking about that strategy. The DEMs do not want Bush to pass SS reform, even if it excluded PRAs. The only thing coming out of them is PRA = Evil. What I haven't heard is the following: "We, the DEMs, strongly disagree with PRAs for reasons X, Y, and Z, but we look forward to working with the President on a bipartisan solution."

This President doesn't work on bi-partisan solutions.

I think the Dems need to view our role as offering an alternative, showing what can be done, and doing our best to defeat any unwise solutions.

[Not Bob]

Originally posted by sgtclub
The DEMs do not want Bush to pass SS reform, even if it excluded PRAs.

I don't think that's right. After all, Tip O'Neill was able to work with Ronald Reagan to reform social security via a bipartisan commission back in the day. And as hated as Dubya is today, remember that the Gipper was truly loathed by liberals in the early 1980s.

I predict that when his efforts to strong-arm the Senate fail, he'll fall back to the bipartisan commission approach, and will find a Moynihan or two (George Mitchell and Warren Rudman) to work a deal.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Bad_Rich_Chic
Yeah, but he doesn't necessarily get to set the terms of the public debate, or guide public opinion of the direction thereof.

Are you kidding? Of course he's setting the terms of the public debate. And no Democratic plan is even going to come to a vote in the House.

That would be nice, but past performance makes me wonder how fast ol' Ted would insist there is no Medicare crisis at all, bush is LYING, if Bush were to propose structural reform there, too. (I only wish that were likely, 'cause there's only one possible reform there, which is to hugely diminish benefits. And/or force all oldsters into strictly managed care, which would probably work not at all in practice but at least has some arguments for it in theory. Come to think of it, nevermind, I'm sure both parties can find ways to fuck it up further and generally avoid the truth.)

If this is going to turn into one those Kennedy bull sessions, why don't you and Hank just do it by PM and save the rest of us.

Conservatives have been telling people that the end of SS was nigh for years. The projected demise keeps moving back, though. So you have this situation where everybody knows there's a problem, but the problem is mostly what they know.

As for Medicare, it seems to me that what ails Medicare is also what ails private health insurance, which gets more and more expensive every year. I don't really know how to solve that one; RT has my proxy.

Well, I certainly don't think he should sit on the sidelines and proclaim that he won't kick because there is no game going on, and even if there was Scroeder's lously rushing technique has lost more points than his field goal would be worth anyhow so there is no need to try.

BR(I deny any responsibility for this choice of analogy)C

Indeed, I now regret the analogy. Congrats. But why are we talking about this game at all, instead of Medicare or the unsustainable deficit? Craziness. Too much more of this GOP rule is really going to fuck the country over.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sgtclub
This is the common refrain these days - If Bush is going to do X, he should do it here first. We saw it with Iraq ("Are we going to invade every country with human rights violations") and we are now seeing it with SS.

No shit. Because Bush has picked his battles. Iraq didn't threaten us, and Social Security is not nearly immediate a problem as the Bush deficits or Medicare. And yet the man pretends to be concerned about the funding shortfall Social Security faces in 2052. So no wonder people point out that other programs are going to run out of money much earlier.

I agree with most of BRC's posts (surprise surprise) - the DEMs won't come up with a plan to save SS because they absolutely do not want Bush/GOP to get credit for "fixing" it.

If Republicans really cared about fixing it instead of (a) ending it, and/or (b) not sharing any credit, they reach the sort of bipartisan compromise we talked about the other day. That this is not happening is, first and foremost, because Bush does not want it to happen.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
I don't believe that's true. If they could get Bush to advocate increases in taxes and reductions in benefits that would provide a long-term solution, they would be quite happy to let him solve that problem and take the heat. But they're not going to propose that as an opening response for obvious reasons. They'll let Bush build the support and then "grudgingly" go along, at least in the safe seats, and let hte no votes come from the 6 unsafe districts and in the contest senate states.

I don't even agree with this. If Bush agreed to real reforms that maintained SS as a guaranteed benefit and ensured its funding, he'd easily pick off enough Democrats to get it passed and call it bipartisan. But that would mean strengthening the program, and his people want to end it.

[Bad_Rich_Chic]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
I think the Dems need to view our role as offering an alternative, showing what can be done, and doing our best to defeat any unwise solutions.

2. Please get someone started on this any time now. 'Cause I don't think the private account idea has been thoroughly thought out yet, and if no one suggests alternatives I think there's an increased chance it will pass without serious consideration.

BR(Hillary might be smart enough to try "bridging the gap" w/ the Bushies on this issue, which might go a long way towards de-fanging what Pat Buchannon very amusingly called her "Madame deFarge image" among the anti-Clinton psychos, which might actually start to make her nationally electable by '08)C

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
If Bush agreed to real reforms that maintained SS as a guaranteed benefit and ensured its funding, he'd easily pick off enough Democrats to get it passed and call it bipartisan.

It's the third rail. Give Bush credit for at least that--that's why he's got this overworked alternative, which spares the older set any changes and purports to provide advantages for the younger set.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
It's the third rail. Give Bush credit for at least that--that's why he's got this overworked alternative, which spares the older set any changes and purports to provide advantages for the younger set.

Give him credit for what? Raising the issue now that he's not going to run for reelection? Congressional Republicans are really happy about that. If he'd run on the issue, he could more plausibly claim a mandate on it, but they're worried that he's hanging them out to dry. This is what I really don't get about those of you who are on the board complaining about the Democrats: Bush doesn't have the Republicans' support yet on this stuff. He'd have more of it if he could pick off a few Dems for cover, but they've been burned by his fake bi-partisanship so many times now that they're not biting.

Social Security is one of the most popular government programs ever. Bush wants to end it. It's not surprising that he's having a hard time drumming up supporting.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Give him credit for what? Raising the issue now that he's not going to run for reelection?

He recognizes that changing SS isn't politically palatable. It's a non-starter if the proposal is the standard raise taxes/reduce benefits. He knows that, so he's making a bold play with a proposal that might appeal to (or not be opposed by) the usual interests. I'm not saying it's a winning proposal, or even the highest priority. But I guess you'd prefer to have no one do anything for hte next four years.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
He recognizes that changing SS isn't politically palatable. It's a non-starter if the proposal is the standard raise taxes/reduce benefits. He knows that, so he's making a bold play with a proposal that might appeal to (or not be opposed by) the usual interests. I'm not saying it's a winning proposal, or even the highest priority. But I guess you'd prefer to have no one do anything for hte next four years.

That's not true at all. If conservatives wanted to try to reform Social Security to avoid the funding problems projected for five decades from now, I have little doubt that they could get 60 Senators and enough representives to tweak things to get it done. A little increase in the retirement age, a little raise in the cap on earnings, and so on. If the President made the case that the system needed to be reformed and proposed that kind of reform, there's no doubt in my mind that he could get it passed.

But it would have to be real reform. He's trying to transform Social Security into something different, not save it.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
He recognizes that changing SS isn't politically palatable. It's a non-starter if the proposal is the standard raise taxes/reduce benefits. He knows that, so he's making a bold play with a proposal that might appeal to (or not be opposed by) the usual interests. I'm not saying it's a winning proposal, or even the highest priority. But I guess you'd prefer to have no one do anything for hte next four years.

So when Hillary runs, are you going to give her credit for attacking healthcare reform?

Sometimes it's tough to know when to give someone "credit" for being bold and when to scream at them because when they touch that third rail, they're not just going to fry themselves but cause that oncoming train to derail as well.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
So when Hillary runs, are you going to give her credit for attacking healthcare reform?

Sometimes it's tough to know when to give someone "credit" for being bold and when to scream at them because when they touch that third rail, they're not just going to fry themselves but cause that oncoming train to derail as well.

I'll give Bill credit for doing it in 1993, and then challenge his stupidity in assigning it to Hillary.

Agreed on the second point, but what I don't understand is why Ty's getting worked up about a proposal that he says is DOA on the ground that it will kill SS. It can't be both. If it's fearsome, there must be some chance it will pass.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by Bad_Rich_Chic
2. Please get someone started on this any time now. 'Cause I don't think the private account idea has been thoroughly thought out yet, and if no one suggests alternatives I think there's an increased chance it will pass without serious consideration.

So here's my program for reforming social security:

(1) Diversify the portfolio in there now, investing limited amounts in corporate bonds and stock and in overseas government and corporate bonds and stock. This should increase return while reducing risk, for reasons I explained above. The investment as a percentage of the portfolio should be small, the move into the market should be done over time, and we should outsource the management to a number of different vendors so it is not centrally directed.

(2) Broaden the tax base. Social security should become a surtax on all income, not just a tax on wages. Part of the base broadening should go to reduce the rate, part should go to reduce the pending imbalances.

(3) Take the cap off. The cap should be taken off, so all income is subject to the social security levy. The resulting revenue should be used in part to reduce the tax and in part to reduce the pending imbalances.

(4) Create tiered benefits. Social security has to deliver a certain level of benefit to everyone. But a plan should be put in place to, if revenues prove inadequate, cut back on benefits based on a mix of means testing and payments in. That is, the wealthy who have made few contributions should be cut back first, with additional cutbacks being applied on a formula basis. But I'd limit it so cutbacks would never exceed 20% of the benefit.

(5) Reduce deferral on other retirement funds. The government has created an enormous industry with tax-advantaged retirement savings, and by deferring taxes on 401(k) and other pension benefits has helped lots of high income Americans build enormous assets. If social security is falling short, this is exactly the place I would cut back on our tax expenditures, by doing something like leving a 5% or 10% tax on income of these otherwise tax-exempt vehicles. It's still a huge savings incentive.

The above plan is political suicide, but that's beside the point.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Agreed on the second point, but what I don't understand is why Ty's getting worked up about a proposal that he says is DOA on the ground that it will kill SS. It can't be both. If it's fearsome, there must be some chance it will pass.

I didn't say it was DOA. I said that Bush's problem right now is in lining up support in his own party. Who knows how it'll turn out.

The thing that I find aggravating is the criticisms of the Democrats. You have a bunch of Republicans running the country into the ground, fiscally speaking, and people want to fault the Democrats for failing to propose some Platonic ideal of policy reform? I mean, WTF? In the current environment, criticizing what Democrats are saying is just a distraction from criticizing what Republicans are doing. Barring change in GOP leadership, or something earth-shaking, the Democrats are irrelevant except insofar as they can slow the Republicans down. This is because Republicans leaders have decided to operate this way. Think back to the intelligence reform bill, and to Hastert's explanation that he had the votes to pass the bill, his own ostensibly included, but wouldn't bring the bill to a vote because he didn't a majority of the Republicans.

etfs