Social Security

The Grand Bargain’s Best Last Chance

by Elias Isquith on April 13, 2013

Obama talking Medicare Social Security cuts

I’ll be honest: when it comes to President Obama’s willingness to use Social Security as a bargaining chip, my outrage reserves are tapped. I understand why people are upset over the New York Times report that Obama’s budget will include cuts to Social Security; and I wouldn’t ask folks to be quiet since causing a ruckus is the essence of activism. I’m also on-record (a.k.a. the internet) in my belief that progressives should go total Tea Party-level obstructionist in the face of such a cut.

All the same, I related to Jonathan Chait’s response to the news, which was to call Barack Obama’s willingness to trade Social Security for higher taxes no news at all. Obama’s said as much for years. Examples are easy to find, and Digby has been tracking them since at least 2009. What they all show is that this news is not news. And it’s certainly not a reversal; or at least it’s not a reversal from the position taken at the beginning of the first term. As long as he’s been president, he’s been this way.

My take on the partisan politics is similar to Chait’s, too. There’s a flailing characteristic to the leak. For one thing, the proposal is a textbook case of lipstick on a pig politics; Republicans already turned this framework down during the fiscal cliff negotiations. As Chait puts it:

Mainly this appears to be a message strategy aimed at advocates of BipartisanThink, who have been blaming Obama for failing to offer the plan he has in fact been offering. The strategy is that, by converting their offer to Boehner from an “offer” to a “budget,” it will prove that Obama is Serious…

[T]his strikes me as completely ridiculous.

It is completely ridiculous. But if Republicans were to actually realize what’s within their reach — getting a Democratic president not only agree to cut but offer to cut Social Security — and took yes for an answer, the ridiculous would become the real all too quickly.

But a Grand Bargain can’t become law unless it gets through the House. And no bill that conservative Republicans regard as a sell-out to Obama would get out of the House without significant Democratic support. Without the Party’s Progressive Caucus’s support, the numbers even on the Democratic side don’t add up.

What it all means is that if third time’s the charm when it comes to Obama’s Grand Bargain, there will be an empire’s worth of pressure on Congressional liberals to get with the program — even if the program is cutting a sacred Democratic-created program. The logic will somewhat approximate that described so memorably by Heath Ledger as the Joker in The Dark Knight and his monologue about “the plan”:

On that score, Greg Sargent of the Washington Post reports progressive leader Raul Grijalva laying down a line in the sand, refusing to vote for a cut, full stop. But it unfortunately sounds like Grijalva is speaking very much for himself:

Asked if he would vote against any deal containing Chained CPI, Grijalva said: “I’ve made the commitment that if this is part of it, I will not vote for it. I can’t support it.”

However, asked if he thought a sizable bloc of liberals would vote No, Grijalva demurred, and — in something that will bring back bad memories for the left — cited the health care debate as an example. “At this point, I don’t know,” he said. “We’ve been through this before with the public option. The motivation will be there to close ranks and support the president.”

Oh, Tea Party Republicans, don’t fail us now…

{ 1 comment }

The Politics Of Envy

by Elias Isquith on April 30, 2012

Anti-union

Have you noticed the strain of contemporary right-wing thinking in which the speaker purports to be advocating something egalitarian in nature, but is actually using envy to fuel even greater inequality? It’s a slightly more sophisticated version of the “We must repeal Obamacare in order to save our children” line. When done correctly, it’s really an impressive move — the kind of trick the word “sophistry” only begins to describe. And if you haven’t seen it done yet, you will soon. Ever since the crash in ’08 sent deficits and debt sky-high,self-styled fiscal conservatives have been tossing out this bait-and-switch like little old ladies toss breadcrumbs to pigeons.

Speaking of little old ladies: most of the time, the tactic is used as an excuse to gut the New Deal and the Great Society and its intended audience is youngins like me. Depending on their level of integrity, these advocates of generational struggle point to Medicare and/or Social Security as, in one of their favorite locutions, ticking time-bombs just waiting to blow up (in about 20-30 years) and ruin America’s future. In and of itself, their argument may be hysterical, but it’s not absurd. The trajectory of Medicare expenditures is problematic, what with the Baby Boomers’ joints getting creakier by the hour; and Social Security, while in much better shape than many have been led to believe, could use some tweaks between now and two-to-three decades from now.

But if you listened to some of these people, you’d think Chicken Little was a study in even keel composure.

Anyway, what got me thinking about all of this was a recent piece by Connor Kilpatrick of Jacobin and The eXiled Online, a mea culpa of sorts inspired by a recent Esquire broadside against Baby Boomers. Kilpatrick had written a similar analysis focusing on the widening generational gap in futures and politics; but while his was a kinda/sorta tongue-in-cheek (i.e., like any other piece in eXile) call for actual war between these different cohorts, the writer in Esquire ended up using many of the same points to reach a very different conclusion:

Stephen Marche’s Esquire essay, “The War Against Youth,” left me feeling queasy, and by the end of it, I was ready to commit seppuku over a dog-eared copy of Das Kapital. So please excuse me while I indulge in a little Maoist self-criticism.

Marche’s essay hit all the same notes I hit. He even used the same David Frum quote. (Hi, Stephen!) And yes, he wants you to know that he stands firmly with the young and righteous Millennials. So how is it that his conclusions are straight out of a Wall Street Journal editorial? It was like being forced to watch my doppelgänger hack up an innocent: I didn’t do it, but jesus—except for the whole fiendish-grin and no-pupils thing, that looks a hell of a lot like me swinging that axe.

Kilpatrick’s article is a fun read in its entirety, but here’s the part where my mind went “ding!”:

Generational politics allows the ruling class to dress up our economic catastrophe as simply an ‘imbalance’ between two generations of wage-earners. And once they’ve spun that tale, then they can go in and clean everyone out in the name of fiscal and intergenerational harmony.

And it’s not just the liberals. Even the GOP indulges in Millennial concern-trolling, though you won’t see them shed a crocodile tear for Occupy—unlike their Democratic peers they never made it with a hippie. But most every week, turn on C-SPAN and you can hear some House Republican screeching about how “entitlements” shackle our grandchildren with debt. So they, too, are “on our side.”

This is where our era’s brand of puritanical liberalism–with all its moralism about consumer culture and finger-waving about greed and excess–clears a path for this con. Just another variation on the same Protestant theme. So you can understand why overlords like Pete Peterson want you to see the Boomers as living the life on your dime. Not so that you’ll demand the same and more, but to convince you that healthcare on-demand and a decent retirement are luxuries no one should have–except for the wealthy, of course.

OK, so here are the two places I went. First, because I am who I am, I thought of Bob Dylan. Specifically, I thought of Dylan’s “It’s Alright Ma (I’m Only Bleeding),” this line in particular:

While one who sings with his tongue on fire
Gargles in the rat race choir
Bent out of shape from society’s pliers
Cares not to come up any higher
But rather get you down in the hole
That he’s in

And the second thing I thought of was this Walter Russell Mead post (full disclosure: former Professor of mine) on the ongoing brouhaha between staff and ownership of the New York Times:

Schadenfreude alert: readers, and especially those who don’t much like the New York Times, should make sure they are not eating soup or holding hot liquids before viewing the video below. Uncontrollable gales of laughter stemming from excessive levels of schadenfreude may cause spilling and staining. …

New York Times staffers, like suffering proles all over the world, belong to a labor union, and over the years the union has negotiated a very comfy defined benefit retirement plan. The staffers love the plan.

But economic reality is intruding. Times management, perhaps reading the coverage in its own pages about the companies and cities going bankrupt due to unsustainable union-bargained pension systems, wants to make a change. It wants to offer a defined contribution plan, instead. Workers and the company pay into a 401(k) plan, workers invest it, and when they retire, that is the amount they have towards their income.

It’s an entitled blue deer, meet onrushing truck kind of moment. …

Nobody in the video talks about the changes in the news business that threatens to drive the Times into a deep dive. Nobody talks about the prospect of future significant staff cuts if costs can’t be contained. None of them discuss the incongruity between their own naive sense of entitlement and what is going on in the cities, companies and countries they cover.

They just want the money.

Annoyingly, the video embed in the original post isn’t working, so we can’t see for ourselves what an “entitled blue deer” looks like. (Probably like this.) But that’s not really the point.

Instead, notice how Mead frames all of this: employees of the Times are entitled, naïve, and probably a bunch of other not-so-good things Mead had to constrain himself from writing because they have the audacity to protest when management wants to change their contract even though life sucks for a whole bunch of other people. How dare they protest against switching to a 401(k) — which, incidentally, might actually not be such a great system — when there are so many people out of work, out of their homes, out of options, and so on? And for what? Money! Only a union member…

To Mead, the bad circumstances afflicting millions is not seen as a tragic and unnecessary ongoing crisis; it’s the yardstick by which any and all of us not-so-unlucky ones are expected to gauge our own circumstances and demands. Mead actually goes further — he implies that the whole reason we’re in this mess to begin with is because of rapacious unions. (This is a running theme of his, portraying the United States’ relatively meager welfare state and labor movement as the source of our impending destruction.) There are perhaps better examples of Marx’s theory that unemployment in a capitalist society serves as a tool through which workers are cowed into submission, but this one is still pretty damn good.

{ 16 comments }

A Lifetime Of Debt

by Elias Isquith on April 2, 2012

Diploma

A fascinating new report from the Washington Post finds a new wrinkle in what may be one of the most thoroughly covered issues in America today — crushing student debt. Turns out that some of the people being weighed down by student loans don’t quite fit the profile you’d expect:

The burden of paying for college is wreaking havoc on the finances of an unexpected demographic: senior citizens.

New research from the Federal Reserve Bank of New York shows that Americans 60 and older still owe about $36 billion in student loans, providing a rare window into the dynamics of student debt. More than 10 percent of those loans are delinquent. As a result, consumer advocates say, it is not uncommon for Social Security checks to be garnished or for debt collectors to harass borrowers in their 80s over student loans that are decades old.

That even seniors remain saddled with student loans highlights what a growing chorus of lawmakers, economists and financial experts say has become a central conflict in the nation’s higher education system: The long-touted benefits of a college degree are being diluted by rising tuition rates and the longevity of debt.

Some of these older Americans are still grappling with their first wave of student loans, while others took on new debt when they returned to school later in life in hopes of becoming more competitive in the labor force. Many have co-signed for loans with their children or grandchildren to help them afford ballooning tuition.

The recent recession exacerbated this problem, making it harder for older Americans — or the youths they are supporting in school — to get good-paying jobs. And unlike other debts, student loans cannot be shed in bankruptcy. As a result, some older Americans have found that a college degree led not to a prosperous career but instead to a lifetime under the shadow of debt.

“A student loan can be a debt that’s kind of like a ball and chain that you can drag to the grave,” said William E. Brewer, president of the National Association of Consumer Bankruptcy Attorneys. “You can unhook it when they lay you in the coffin.”

{ Comments on this entry are closed }

Obamalone

A new blockbuster report from The Washington Post serves as yet another retrospective on the failed Grand Bargain debt-ceiling negotiations of last summer, despite this being a period of our history that most Americans likely only dimly and hesitantly recall. For most of us, the memory of these few weeks sits in the section of our mental library reserved for those traumatic, drawn-out episodes of ineptitude and failure. It’s lodged in-between the chronicle of that first, agonizing high school break-up and the log book documenting the fear and regret following a night spent watching horror films made for less impressionable audiences. Even if the emotional weight it slammed against our bodies was insignificant in comparison to those personal touchstones, it still left a mark — comparable, perhaps, to a night of too much drink and too little sense. It’s not exactly something we’re thrilled to revisit.

But in this as well as many other ways, the denizens of DC are not like most of us. And it’s not surprising, I suppose, if you keep in mind just what it is that the wise old men (and token women) of Washington think they lost last summer. A great, historic agreement to finally canonize neoliberalism as the bi-partisan reality from which There Is No Alternative; the Holy Grail of reasonable centrism; the long-awaited doling-out of Shared Suffering and Sacrifice; the great reckoning. For a fleeting moment in August, it was so, so close.

And then it was gone.

To the luck of the nation, as well as Obama and the Democratic Party, I might add. Despite his best efforts, Barack Obama was not able to lock-in the kind of austerity measures here in America that are currently sending Europe well on its way to a Lost Decade. He had to give up every Democrat’s dream — cutting social welfare programs in order to lock-in historically low tax rates for the ultra-rich — and settle instead for super committees and triggers, for bare minimums and shifting blame. But while the dominant narrative that’s emerged from the wreckage of this ultimate Washington, DC fustercluck has been one of Boehnerian impotence (characterized by a Speaker of the House finding himself in the uncommon and ignominious position of being the dog wagged vigorously and with true abandon by his Tea Party tail) the Post‘s lengthy report is unique. A few particulars gibe with those shared before, but the picture painted casts the President in a different hue.

In this tableau, it’s Obama, not Boehner, who sits at the center of kids’ table, poised to blow out the candles, but just moments away from going face-first into the frosting.

I’d hesitate to call the article definitive or authoritative. It’s obvious that the sources used, blind and otherwise, ere on the side of the Elephants — and it’s patently obvious that the largest source from inside the White House is a man no longer inside the White House, in no small measure because of how spectacularly poorly he performed during his time inside the White House. I speak, of course, of a Mr. Former Chief of Staff Bill Daley. Ever since Daley was officially fired, after being de facto fired some weeks earlier, it’s not been rare to see stories depicting his time in the White House in an almost tragic light. He was the no-nonsense business-friendly centrist who came in to Get Things Done just like Obama said he wanted. But the ugly partisan goblins and trolls of DC came out with their knives and stabbed Daley in the back, and compelled Obama to wuss out on being a macho, square-jawed Clintonian Third Way hero, becoming instead a typical partisan liberal Democrat running for reelection.

Blah, blah, blah. It’s basically the same story Rahm Emanuel was pitching in the brief period of time between his being more or less fired and his coronation as the new Da Mare. Emanuel, however, had the benefit of actually accomplishing something during his time at 1600, which took the sting away just a little…

Anyway, the gist of the report is that Obama, Boehner, and Cantor were very close to signing off on a deal that would have done a whole bunch of things Republicans wanted — raising Medicare’s eligibility age, lowering cost-of-living adjustments for Social Security, locking-in tax rates not only below those during the Clinton years but potentially below today’s post-Bush cuts, locking-in low rates on capital gains and corporations, and cut-cut-cutting sundry other programs, wages, and departments — in exchange for…raising the debt ceiling and closing out some loopholes in the tax code, which would’ve resulted in somewhere near $800 billion in revenue. In other words, Obama was very, very close to agreeing to a far more draconian and permanent austerity than Republicans could ever dream of achieving, even if they controlled the White House.

Save for Ralph Nader’s, he was not exactly living up to expectations.

And then the so-called Gang of Six — a working-group of Senators, three from each side, tasked with proposing their own deficit-reduction plan — unveiled the outlines of their framework and Obama found a way to, even by the warped and misguided standards he was living by at the time, muck things up further:

The Gang of Six was unable to seal its own deal. But that morning — a Tuesday — they finally revealed their work at a closed-door briefing for 64 fellow senators. Coming at that moment, it had an unintended effect.

Desperate to resolve the debt-limit deadlock, senators enthusiastically and publicly latched on to the proposal, which included more taxes and stronger protections for the poor and elderly than the still-secret Obama-Boehner framework. Dozens of senators emerged from the briefing praising the group’s work, including Republicans such as Lamar Alexander (Tenn.), then the third-ranking member of his party’s leadership team. The Gang of Six had “come to a bipartisan agreement,” Alexander told reporters, “and I support it.”

At the White House, Obama showed equal enthusiasm. He made a rare appearance in the White House pressroom, surprising reporters who had been awaiting the regular briefing from press secretary Jay Carney. As Carney stood to the side, the president hailed the plan as “broadly consistent with what we’ve been working on here in the White House and with the presentations that I have made to the leadership when they have come over here.”

In private, however, he and his aides were alarmed. The emerging deal with Boehner looked timid by comparison.

“The Democratic leaders already thought we were idiot negotiators,” Daley said. “So I called Barry [Jackson] and said, ‘What are we going to do here? How are we going to sell Democrats to take $800 billion when Republican senators have signed on to” nearly $2 trillion?

Daley added,“I don’t think it was a mischaracterization on our part to say we’d be beat up miserably by Democrats who thought we got out-negotiated.”

In lauding the plan quickly, Obama hoped to harness the enthusiasm for it on behalf of his own talks. But his appearance that day caused more problems by increasing suspicions among conservatives about the group’s framework — and boosting their distrust of any bipartisan dealmaking.

Coburn, a staunch conservative and the only member of his party who openly acknowledged the need for higher taxes to balance the budget, had developed a close personal bond with Obama dating to their shared opposition to federal budget earmarks when both were senators. But Coburn was “shocked,” he said later, when he saw Obama’s remarks that day on television. His effusive praise for the Gang of Six, Coburn believed, was a tactical mistake that revealed Obama’s inexperience in the ways of Washington. It signaled to skittish conservatives that a tax hike was on the way.

Obama’s announcement, Coburn said in an interview, “absolutely killed anything we were doing with the Republicans.”

From there on out things went from bad to worse, with the White House scrambling to secure something despite their knowing — and their actions belie that they knew — the deal on the table was not only unacceptable but laughably so. It would have spelled the end of Obama’s Presidency, and possibly dealt a stomach-punch to the Democratic Party that would’ve taken a generation to undo. Recall that this is all transpiring mere weeks before the Occupy protests start happening in-earnest. Can you imagine how rambunctious, chaotic, and enraged people would have become if Mr. Hope and Change had been the man responsible for gutting the twin pillars of 20th century liberalism, Social Security and Medicare? Obama would have become a walking (or perhaps flying, since lame ducks don’t walk) American Weimar; the prophesied Barack Hoover Obama.

This is all crying over unspilt milk, I know, since no deal was reached and, as the article makes clear, Obama subsequently decided to give up on any sweeping compromises and focus instead on winning the political argument that is 2012. Predictably, the authors of the Post piece write as if Obama’s volte face in this regard was some kind of tragic act of deep, deep cynicism. (“His goal now was unequivocal: to win a second term,” they finish. How ugly! No great President has ever done something so venal, so selfish, as that. Maneuvering to be reelected… God truly is dead.) Yet though post-August Obama has been a much more impressive figure — a politician willing to give up the always a silly and deeply narcissistic conviction that he was a technocrat messiah, a Great Compromiser, freeing men and women from all walks of life from the crippling affliction of being unable to see the Holy Path of the Reasonable Moderate that lay before them — I don’t think I’ll ever totally get over summer 2011. How could anyone who paid attention and who’s read the retrospectives still not come away shaken?

Even when people’s most destructive delusions and nastiest addictions bring them to the brink of destruction, of themselves everyone around them, most of us find a way to forgive. But that doesn’t mean we forget. For Village scribes, self-styled centrists, and long-time fans of austerity and foes of social democracy alike, the failed Grand Bargain will forever loom in the memory like their own tower of Babel in those sweet moments before it fell. For me, it’s more like the shadow of that great, iron-soled Other Shoe. And I’m just waiting for it to finally drop.

{ Comments on this entry are closed }

Socsec

At Jacobin‘s blog (a must-read for people who enjoy this blog) Seth Ackerman argues that the conventional wisdom about Tea Partiers’ rather selective antipathy for Big Government — documented in this example by the peerless Theda Skocpol alongside Vanessa Williamson — is causing liberals to miss the forest for the tea:

[Skocpol and Williamson] make abundant use of polling data to argue that when it comes to slashing government spending, Tea Partiers draw the line at those two programs [Social Security and Medicare]. But their empirical case is a bit one-sided. For example, they cite a Public Policy Polling survey in which Tea Partiers, like the rest of the population, overwhelmingly preferred raising the Social Security tax to having “benefits cut and the retirement age increased to age 69.” But just a few months later, at the height of the debate over Paul Ryan’s plan to slash and privatize Medicare, the same polling firm found that when asked to choose between “raising taxes on the wealthiest 2% of Americans or privatizing Medicare” to close the deficit, the general population favored the former (64% to 22%) while the Tea Partiers favored the latter (52% to 36%). Skocpol and Williamson note a New York Times poll in which 62% of Tea Partiers say Social Security and Medicare are “worth the cost” to taxpayers. (Not hugely different from the 76% of the general population who said so.) But in the same poll, self-described supporters of “smaller government” were asked whether they would favor it if it “required cuts in spending on domestic programs such as Social Security, Medicare, education, or defense.” Only 29% of the general population were willing to go that far. Among Tea Partiers the number was 67%.

Now… it’s indisputable that Tea Partiers make some kind of conceptual distinction between universal programs like Social Security and Medicare and other government programs. But this says less about the Tea Party than it does about universal social programs. It is easy for liberals to point to the Tea Partiers and call them bigots because they make a distinction between “people on welfare” and “normal people.” But in fact it’s the state that has made that distinction. When the state operates a means-tested or other conditional program, it inspects each citizen and stamps him or her as belonging to one category or the other, either as part of a “food stamp class” or a “normal American” class. By contrast, no one is perceived as being part of the “Social Security class” — or, rather, everyone is perceived as belonging to it together.

To me, this critique of what Mike Konczal calls “pity-charity liberalism” is really, really important. But, frustratingly — though understandably — it’s not a conversation that left-of-center political actors in the United States often have. One explanation might be that it’s because the division-point in question is in some ways esoteric when the other side isn’t advocating tweaks to the welfare state but its very annihilation. Logic goes, we’ll talk about this stuff later — after we’ve beat back the oncoming army. (When that happens? Not so clear.)

Another explanation for why we don’t have this conversation is because the means-testing side has decisively won — indeed, they did so a while ago (see: Clinton, Bill) — and thus their position is so entrenched that a lot of people don’t even realize it’s a position at all rather than “common sense.” Ideological hegemony, in a phrase. I’ve got some personal evidence of this, just anecdotally, in that when I’ve talked to some liberal friends who are informed but not exactly in-the-weeds when it comes to politics, I’ve often heard them say that they’re in favor of a reasonable check on entitlement growth. They speak Obama, basically.

And when I say in response, OK, one way to do that is to implement means-testing for Medicare and Social Security (reader: please put aside whether or not this is actually enough; I’m aware that many think it won’t be) they invariably say they support the idea. But — when I flag and briefly explain the Ackerman critique, they almost always walk back their earlier support of means-testing and end up at the “Hmm… damn” juncture; the point where you realize the solution you’d like is about as palatable to the contemporary political scene as renaming the country The People’s Republic of Ho Chi Minh is Awesome.

In any event, I’m always happy to see this distinction — between universal welfare and “pity-charity liberalism” — highlighted. And you can probably guess which side I’d claim as my own.

{ Comments on this entry are closed }

New Democrats and the NY 9th

by Elias Isquith on September 15, 2011

Dave Weigel reports on how it is that a Republican will be representing NY’s 9th for the first time since 1923. Besides the terrible economy, he zeroes in on three reasons:

  1. Gay marriage (the Democratic candidate Dave Weprin supports it) and its continued potency as a wedge issue in this highly orthodox district
  2. Obama’s various acts of apostasy vis-a-vis Israel
  3. The inability of the Democratic party to convince voters that they will be any better at protecting their entitlements than Republicans.

He writes:

The party tried, and failed, to wound Turner by telling voters he’d provide one more Republican vote to weaken entitlements. That

worked in New York’s 26th district, where Democrat Kathy Hochul tore pages out of the Ryan plan and made her Republican opponent eat the

m. In the 9th, Turner and his surrogates tried to neutralize the entitlement issue by promising not to cut entitlements. In two robocalls, Koch promised voters that Turner wouldn’t cut Medicare or Social Security. T

he weekend before the election, Hikind said the same thing, and bolstered his case by saying Democrats were risking the programs.

“The president of the United States is now a member of the Tea Party!” said Hikind. “He said, in his own words, that there won’t be Medicare and Social Security for my children and your children and my grandchildren unless we address Medicare!”

That’s not really a wedge issue – it’s the slow death of a wedge issue. It’s the start of a problem for Democrats, who have gone from attacking the Ryan plans for entitlement reform to vouching support for some undefined “everything on the table” entitlement reform. There might not be any way for Democrats to dodge this, and there’s no sign that they want to. And that leaves all of them in the position of Democrats in New York’s 9th. Their traditional base, weary of the recession, not sure what Democrats have to offer any more, are ready to be wedged.

This is just one man’s take, of course; and I’d imagine that the bad economy is overwhelmingly the best explanation for Weprin’s failure. Still, if this is true—wow.

Right about now, everyone’s already doing post-mortem for a Presidency that’s still more than a year away, at the earliest, from being finished. Please allow me to acknowledge that this is rather silly and wildly premature…and then do it, too. Ahem. If the Obama era is to indeed be a mere four years, and if Weigel is right that Obama has, in the attempt to burnish his post-partisan cred and win over right-leaning independents, sacrificed his party’s ability to convince its traditional base that it will stand firm on its signature, perhaps even defining issue—if all of this is the case, does the President’s turn in early and mid-2011 become, politically at least, his most obvious cardinal sin?

In a lot of ways, Obama was simply carrying post-DLC Democratic party thinking to its logical conclusion when he put America’s welfare state in the pot. Ever since Clinton, there’s been an intellectual incoherence to Democrats continued defenses of Medicare and Social Security (they never liked talking about Medicaid much if they could help it); if you’re going to buy-in to the argument that says the free-market always will do everything better, then, really, how do you come back to a proposal like Paul Ryan’s with any real integrity? Well, inevitably, you end up having to convince voters that there difference in degree—he’ll slash, you’ll prune—is in fact a difference in kind.

At the same time, of course, you try to emphasize to other political constituencies (Wall Street, mainly) that while you’ll cop to being a bit of a softie and would oppose dismantling the welfare state entirely, your differences with Randians like Paul Ryan—politicians who, quite reasonably seem to Wall Street like the better bet—are really only in degree, not kind. You’re trying to portray yourself as “business friendly” after all. And without even bothering to challenge the rather narrow and certainly contestable definition of the term (having people being able to spend real, i.e. not borrowed, money on things besides health care is good for business), that means you’re in the unenviable position of, more than is the norm for even for a politician, talking out of both sides of your mouth.

When things are good, like they were in the 90s; or when you don’t have the power to act, anyway, as was the case for most of the 00s, then this incoherence isn’t really so much of a problem. But, if Weigel’s right, it looks as if during the recession, the weight may have become too much to bear. Not only for Democratic politicians but, crucially, for their longtime voters.

{ Comments on this entry are closed }

You know how you’re not supposed to mess with Texas? Well, someone needs to tell the Governor of Texas not to mess with Social Security:

Americans strongly disagree with the statements Rick Perry made about Social Security in last week’s Republican Presidential debate, and Barack Obama has nearly doubled his lead over Perry nationally in the span of just 3 weeks.

Only 20% of voters agree with Perry that Social Security is a Ponzi scheme to 70% who dissent from that statement.  Democrats (4/87) and independents (20/69) are pretty universal in their disagreement with Perry and even Republicans (39/49) don’t stand with him on this one. When it comes to the possibility of actually ending Social Security voters are even more unanimous- 82% oppose taking that step to only 10% who would be supportive of it.  If Perry ends up as the Republican nominee and Democrats can effectively convince the electorate that he does want to end Social Security it could be an extremely damaging issue for him.

In fact it appears that Perry’s rhetoric on Social Security could already be causing him problems.  When PPP did a national poll three weeks ago Barack Obama led Perry by only 6 points at 49-43.  Now that gap has widened to 11 points at 52-41.  The main movement has come with Democratic voters.  On the previous poll Obama had only a 68 point lead with the party base at 81-13 but now it’s 80 points at 89-9.  We know there are a lot of Democratic voters disenchanted with Obama right now but if the GOP puts forward someone like Perry who’s willing to go after one of the Holy Grails of the party’s orthodoxy like Social Security it might scare those voters back into the fold.

People have reasonably expressed concerns that, in the face of a bad economy, even Perry’s heretofore way out-there comments about Social Security might not be enough to keep him from winning the White House. This still might be the case—it depends on how and this hypothetical bad economy is, I suppose. But let’s not get too clever for our own good, here: some truisms are actually true, and I think the untouchability of Social Security in the public mind is one of them. In fact, it very well may be the case that, during hard economic times, Social Security becomes even more of a holy third rail of fire and brimstone and lightning bolts and pestilence, too, for politicians.

In any event, congrats to Mitt Romney’s press team; their day just got way, way easier.

{ Comments on this entry are closed }