Monday, June 20, 2005
The Definition of Giving Up
The other evening, a family with two young children joined us for dinner. Not long into the meal, their 7-year-old son began to throw a tantrum: "I don't want that for dinner," he said, and then refused to eat until his parents forced the issue. The end result? He ate what his parents wanted him to, he gained no more than frustrated and tired attention, and no one was pleased with the end result or the process. What was the little man's mistake, as admitted to by his mother? "Had he simply said what he wanted earlier, we might have avoided this whole mess."
Sound familiar? This fracas is eerily similar to the battles being played out in the Capitol every day lately, as Republicans suggest a course of policy, and the Democrats ingest it, cry, then spit it out like a toddler in a highchair.
The Social Security debate is the perfect example - can you seriously name one significant reform proposal that has been brought up by Democrats? Even Nordy must admit that, with no current action, SS goes into the red right around the time the two of us are looking to retire. And that's a bad thing, and should be addressed sooner rather than later. Argue until you are blue in the face that Medicare is a more pressing need...but you can't outright dismiss SS reform as a legitimate policy discussion.
I thought about looking for quotes from Sen. Reid and Rep. Pelosi on the issue...after all, Nordy did a bang up job with his carefully selected quotes, and as a former campaign communications director I value the spoken word highly. But I thought I would let the Democrats' actions speak for them. Since the Republicans are stuck on rhetoric, SURELY the Democrats must be introducing legislation with fresh ideas, right? Wrong.
Using THOMAS, I located 17 bills introduced by Democrats this year related to Social Security. Of those, 10 either dealt with identity theft, Medicare, or extending benefits to Samoans, who don't even pay the SS payroll tax. So, let's ignore those.
But those remaining seven bills must contain some reform measures, right? Weeelll...two (HR 2860 and HR 653) asked that, in pursuit of budget honesty, Social Security Trust Fund surpluses not be counted in the overall federal ledger for deficit calculation. Fair enough, and a pat on the back to Reps. Smith (WA) and Moore (KS) for these measures. But that's not the issue at hand. What about the others?
- S 275 would employ a new cost of living calculator for determining benefit levels...likely raising costs, as would...
- S 619, which would ensure retired federal employees receive BOTH SS benefits and their sizable government pensions.
- HJRes 25 would amend the Constitution to require the maintenance of a Social Security like system...which is a relatively useless act, since even hardline fiscal conservatives know that Social Security will not be revoked.
- HR 116 would require the government to hold onto SS Trust Fund surpluses in a (you guessed it) lockbox until the solvency of Social Security is "significantly extended."....ooookay, but how will that happen?
- HR 1330 doesn't say; it would simply bar SS Trust Fund monies from being allocated to create private accounts.
What a surprise; after all of their bellyaching, not a SINGLE piece of legislation introduced that begins to offer new solutions to the problem. No bill boldly suggesting to raise the payroll tax to increase receipts. No resolution calling for a study of whether or not 65 is an appropriate retirement age. No call for debate over whether or not we should employ means testing to control costs. Only a scrap of legislation that does not pursue reform, but rather blocks it.
Meanwhile, the GOP introduced dozens of bills, with policies ranging from the creation of individual accounts to the investment of General Fund dollars to bolster the Trust Fund's long-term solvency. No, I don't think any of these suggestions are perfect...but in the halls of the Congress and in the journals of its chambers, the GOP has taken some action on the issue...and taken the heat for touching the 3rd rail of politics. The Democrats have stomped, snorted, but ultimately done nothing.
Nordy, if that's your definition of "acting like a true opposition party"....ooooh, boy. Maybe they'll score some cheap political points for the rhetoric they are spouting...but they sure won't get anything done. But I guess you were right...the Democrats didn't give up on Social Security. They never even bothered to try.
Sound familiar? This fracas is eerily similar to the battles being played out in the Capitol every day lately, as Republicans suggest a course of policy, and the Democrats ingest it, cry, then spit it out like a toddler in a highchair.
The Social Security debate is the perfect example - can you seriously name one significant reform proposal that has been brought up by Democrats? Even Nordy must admit that, with no current action, SS goes into the red right around the time the two of us are looking to retire. And that's a bad thing, and should be addressed sooner rather than later. Argue until you are blue in the face that Medicare is a more pressing need...but you can't outright dismiss SS reform as a legitimate policy discussion.
I thought about looking for quotes from Sen. Reid and Rep. Pelosi on the issue...after all, Nordy did a bang up job with his carefully selected quotes, and as a former campaign communications director I value the spoken word highly. But I thought I would let the Democrats' actions speak for them. Since the Republicans are stuck on rhetoric, SURELY the Democrats must be introducing legislation with fresh ideas, right? Wrong.
Using THOMAS, I located 17 bills introduced by Democrats this year related to Social Security. Of those, 10 either dealt with identity theft, Medicare, or extending benefits to Samoans, who don't even pay the SS payroll tax. So, let's ignore those.
But those remaining seven bills must contain some reform measures, right? Weeelll...two (HR 2860 and HR 653) asked that, in pursuit of budget honesty, Social Security Trust Fund surpluses not be counted in the overall federal ledger for deficit calculation. Fair enough, and a pat on the back to Reps. Smith (WA) and Moore (KS) for these measures. But that's not the issue at hand. What about the others?
- S 275 would employ a new cost of living calculator for determining benefit levels...likely raising costs, as would...
- S 619, which would ensure retired federal employees receive BOTH SS benefits and their sizable government pensions.
- HJRes 25 would amend the Constitution to require the maintenance of a Social Security like system...which is a relatively useless act, since even hardline fiscal conservatives know that Social Security will not be revoked.
- HR 116 would require the government to hold onto SS Trust Fund surpluses in a (you guessed it) lockbox until the solvency of Social Security is "significantly extended."....ooookay, but how will that happen?
- HR 1330 doesn't say; it would simply bar SS Trust Fund monies from being allocated to create private accounts.
What a surprise; after all of their bellyaching, not a SINGLE piece of legislation introduced that begins to offer new solutions to the problem. No bill boldly suggesting to raise the payroll tax to increase receipts. No resolution calling for a study of whether or not 65 is an appropriate retirement age. No call for debate over whether or not we should employ means testing to control costs. Only a scrap of legislation that does not pursue reform, but rather blocks it.
Meanwhile, the GOP introduced dozens of bills, with policies ranging from the creation of individual accounts to the investment of General Fund dollars to bolster the Trust Fund's long-term solvency. No, I don't think any of these suggestions are perfect...but in the halls of the Congress and in the journals of its chambers, the GOP has taken some action on the issue...and taken the heat for touching the 3rd rail of politics. The Democrats have stomped, snorted, but ultimately done nothing.
Nordy, if that's your definition of "acting like a true opposition party"....ooooh, boy. Maybe they'll score some cheap political points for the rhetoric they are spouting...but they sure won't get anything done. But I guess you were right...the Democrats didn't give up on Social Security. They never even bothered to try.
Comments:
<< Home
I'd suggest a different analogy.
The scene: Minnesota on a cold January morning.
"Mommy, I've got a cold"
"Well, son, why don't you strip naked, and jump into the swimming pool. That'll make everything better."
If the kid takes Mom's advice, he'll end up just sicker than he was from the begining.
And so is the case of listening to Republican's "cures" for Social Security. Yeah, they're proposing "something". But the "something" they're proposing will undoubtedly leave the country worse off.
In my last post, I avoided numbers. But, Eirishis: have you looked at the details of the Republican proposals? Do any of them make sense to you? Do you think any of them are a good idea?
If there's a Republican proposal that improves SS's solvency, while keeping benefits anywhere near their current levels, please fill me in. But the best I've see are plans to make SS a program for the poor. And as the saying goes, programs for the poor end up becoming poor programs. And that's the key to Bush's Social Security phase-out plan.
In the meantime, here's a plan that would work: a small increase in the retirement age, coupled with a small increase in the SS tax cap.
Of course, if our economy grows the next 50 years as it did the past 50 years, this whole conversation is pointless.
As an aside, I'd be curious to hear from an insider whether or not Democrats have been considering any "fixes" to Social Security. It wouldn't surprise me if, in this era of blind partisanship, there's no point in a Dem even putting forward a bill. How many initiatives are killed in committee before we even hear about them?
The scene: Minnesota on a cold January morning.
"Mommy, I've got a cold"
"Well, son, why don't you strip naked, and jump into the swimming pool. That'll make everything better."
If the kid takes Mom's advice, he'll end up just sicker than he was from the begining.
And so is the case of listening to Republican's "cures" for Social Security. Yeah, they're proposing "something". But the "something" they're proposing will undoubtedly leave the country worse off.
In my last post, I avoided numbers. But, Eirishis: have you looked at the details of the Republican proposals? Do any of them make sense to you? Do you think any of them are a good idea?
If there's a Republican proposal that improves SS's solvency, while keeping benefits anywhere near their current levels, please fill me in. But the best I've see are plans to make SS a program for the poor. And as the saying goes, programs for the poor end up becoming poor programs. And that's the key to Bush's Social Security phase-out plan.
In the meantime, here's a plan that would work: a small increase in the retirement age, coupled with a small increase in the SS tax cap.
Of course, if our economy grows the next 50 years as it did the past 50 years, this whole conversation is pointless.
As an aside, I'd be curious to hear from an insider whether or not Democrats have been considering any "fixes" to Social Security. It wouldn't surprise me if, in this era of blind partisanship, there's no point in a Dem even putting forward a bill. How many initiatives are killed in committee before we even hear about them?
Nordy, of course I looked at the Republican proposals...and you know what, they are lacking. But legislation is a negotiation, and at least the GOP put something on the table to talk about. And I'm not alone in thinking that the GOP deserves some credit, and the Democrats some blame, for this situation: the Washington Post basically said the exact same thing in one of today's editorials.
For the record, I think that the "proper" solution (for now) is going to be a mix of two things:
-Lifting the payroll tax income ceiling from the current level of $85,000;
-Introducing means testing to, yes, make it primarily a program for the poor.
No, I don't have a problem with making it a program for the poor; to rip off The West Wing, I'm for all the good government we can afford. In the long run, we can afford to run a social insurance program for the indigent. We cannot afford to run a public pension plan for 280 million people.
But, then again, I'm one of the few Republicans left who cares about fiscal conservatism...at least, that's what you would think if you only looked at the national level. This weekend, I'll add some evidence that the GOP is still the party to protect your wallet.
Post a Comment
For the record, I think that the "proper" solution (for now) is going to be a mix of two things:
-Lifting the payroll tax income ceiling from the current level of $85,000;
-Introducing means testing to, yes, make it primarily a program for the poor.
No, I don't have a problem with making it a program for the poor; to rip off The West Wing, I'm for all the good government we can afford. In the long run, we can afford to run a social insurance program for the indigent. We cannot afford to run a public pension plan for 280 million people.
But, then again, I'm one of the few Republicans left who cares about fiscal conservatism...at least, that's what you would think if you only looked at the national level. This weekend, I'll add some evidence that the GOP is still the party to protect your wallet.
<< Home
