Social Security: Odd Bedfellows and Big Stakes

Here's excerpt from another great post by JMM at "Talking Points Memo" early this AM. (The "development" Joshua refers to is apparent strategic decision by Republican House leaders to join Senate comrades in urging Bush to defer to them on selling Social Security "privatization" [more accurately described of course as first step in Bush's scheme for ending Social Security] .)

This development raises a point, which has been lurking in the background through this debate, but has received too little attention. As usual for the president, this battle over Social Security was a war of choice. No one in Congress chose it; he chose it. But once the issue was joined, the White House and the Democrats had a paradoxical commonality of interest in how it would play out.

Let me explain what I mean.

The Democrats didn't choose this fight. It was thrust on them. Because of their core values as a party, the stakes were extraordinarily high. Lose Social Security and the loss is staggering, almost total, given the role it plays in American society. Columnists talk about Roosevelt and legacies and the like. And there's some of that, to be sure, particularly on a sentimental level. But the crux of the matter isn't who created Social Security. It's what the program is and what the Democrats' values are, even if sometimes they need reminding. It's that important.

At the same time, if they could turn back the president's phase-out crusade, the upside would be almost as promising as the downside would be bleak. As it did with health care, a major defeat for a president on privatization could put the policy on ice for years, possibly for the rest of our lifetimes. And the political benefits of defeating the president are too obvious to require explanation.

The White House is in a similar position. If the president could privatize Social Security he would become a truly transformative president, for good or ill. Few presidents get to work on the very architecture of society and state. It's a legacy on steroids.

On the other hand, if the president failed he would have started his second term with his first major political defeat as president and one that came after winning reelection and expanding his majorities in both chambers of congress. It would likely shape the rest of his presidency.

For the White House and the Democrats it's really close to all or nothing, all the chips on the table, with very big upsides and very big downsides.

Incidentally, don't miss the quote posted on TPM from terrific plain-speaking speech by the one and only Senator Boxer yesterday.

Word Games, Anyone?

Presumably riffing on or at least harmonizing with George Lakoff's Don't Think of an Elephant, Professor David Green of Hofstra has come up with a great idea for dialect enhancement. Most of us have likely acclimated by now to the term "progressive." But adopting "regressive" as the standard label for those other folks seems truly inspired.

As Green puts it, in a clip from "What's in a Name? Everything" posted at CommonDreams:

'Regressive', as in: "We don't want to regress back to consigning our elderly to a life of poverty." Or, as in: "We oppose returning to back-alley abortions." Or: "We believe in moving the civil rights agenda forward, not backward." Or, "The regressive right is taking us back to a polarization of wealth not seen since the Gilded Age." And so on.

I like it! Now all we need is a few quick chain-letters to get the word in wide circulation.

Collaborative Ball-watching

For anyone not in the upper 0.001% financially and having a modicum of curiosity (yes, you!) or otherwise interested in whether the Social Security system might continue to serve as a reliable safety net at the time of retirement for you or your offspring, I've got just the referral.

Joshua Micah Marshall has devoted much of his weblog Talking Points Memo recently to the subject of Social Security. He’s been doing yeomanlike work the past couple months monitoring the ever-shifting opinions and courage of congress regarding the future of Social Security. With the help of what must be a legion of fans he maintains almost real-time head-count tallies based on public statements, responses to inquiries from constituents, and so forth.

Besides vital lawmaker tracking, regular reading of TPM may be one of the best ways to avoid being head-faked by the frequent course changes and dare I say flip-flopping of the White House and their spokesfolks. Generally unsuccessful attempts to scrub the term “privatization,” since it apparently wasn’t playing too well in the world of polls, have been a highly entertaining sideshow the past few weeks. Site visitors would have been some of the first to learn that the steps the president wants to take will actually be of no benefit in correcting projected limitations in SS accounts in the future. “Fixing” SS was one of the primary original justifications for the president’s privatization plan; revelation that no improvement in SS would actually result makes for a good test of your pattern-recognition skills.

Marshall is a gifted coiner:

The “Conscience Caucus” is made up of republicans opposed to the president’s dream of fatally weakening and thus eliminating Social Security on the pretext of partial privatization of retirement accounts. Special recognition in the form of a “Loud and Proud” label is earned by those speaking out unequivocally in opposition to the president’s plan.

The “Fainthearted Faction” consists of democrats who appear candidates for supporting the president’s program of privatization and Social Security extermination.

Give him a read. Better yet, how about a bookmark and regular reading.