MUST Read on Social Security Reform

Factcheck.org puts out one of the best discussions of the issues facing social security.  If someone really believes there is not much of a problem, then read this to cure yourself of that affliction.  The article also shows how damned difficult it is to permanently fix social security, even with "moderate" changes as proposed by Democrats or private accounts as proposed by the administration.  The sad thing is that the most likely solutions which seem to be pushed forth today will completely unravel within 10 years, at which point we may very well be talking about "fixing" social security yet again.

One problem the factcheck article (which is only looking at the 75 year window) does not address is what happens in 2018  - the year when social security starts taking in less than it gives out.  At that point, social security starts calling in the bonds from other arms of government.  These bonds were given to social security in return for the excess social security cash and has traditionally been used to cover up budget deficits.  In fact, almost 50% of the national debt is in the form of these bonds.  Social security sees this debt as an asset and some mistakenly refer to this as a lockbox of some type.  The only problem is that, as with any asset, there is a liability.  This is a liability from other parts of government that must pay back the money they have "borrowed" from the social security trust fund.  The money is going to have to come from somewhere, as either tax increases or budget cuts.   How this issue is handled will directly influence the 75 year window as it could easily create issues in GDP growth which would then effect the social security 75 year horizon.

A Clinton Storm Brewing

When I first read blog posts (here, here, here and here) about the comments made by Bill Clinton regarding Iran, I thought it was a joke of some sort.  Unfortunately, it does not seem that way.  Notice of Clinton's remarks was sparked by this Amir Taheri  article which questions Clinton's thinking.

The most baffling part of Clinton's comments is the following:

[It is] the only one with elections, including the United States, including Israel, including you name it, where the liberals, or the progressives, have won two-thirds to 70 percent of the vote in six elections: two for President; two for the parliament, the Majlis; two for the mayoralities.

In every single election, the guys I identify with got two-thirds to 70% of the vote. There is no other country in the world I can say that about, certainly not my own.

Does Clinton believe that Iranian elections are really free (someone needs to explain to him how the slate of officials are really chosen)?  Does Clinton really "identify" with the liberals and progressives in Iran?  Does he really have a CLUE what being a "liberal/progressive" politician in Iran means?  Maybe he should find out what President Muhammad Khatami's views are on equal opportunity for women, or his stance on the acceptance of homosexuality by society, or his concepts of separation of "church" and state, or his ideas about tolerance of other religions.  It sounds like Clinton might be in for a shock.

A "real" liberal, as most westerners would define it, in Iran is considered a heretic and can best be expected to be thrown in jail and definitely does not have the opportunity to run for political office in the Iranian system. 

This may set off quite the storm.  How adeptly Hillary can handle it should go a long way toward displaying how ready she is to run for President in 2008. 

I actually though that Clinton, outside of the whole Lewinsky affair, was a decent President.  Not the most honest or morally upright, but he did a decent job of stewarding this country.  However, his comments really leave me wondering how smart a person he really is. 

ADL Attacks Robert Byrd

I was wondering when the ADL was going to get pissed off with the left's usage of Hitler == Bush logic. Looks like Byrd is getting nailed over his latest remarks. This may put Dean in the spotlight as there will be a lot of people looking to see if the DNC will formally renounce Byrd's remarks.   The interesting thing is that Byrd was not making a direct comparison as is so often done by anti-Bush folks, although his explanation is rather weasly - it's pretty obvious what he intended.  Given Byrd's KKK background, he seems to be an easy target for the ADL to make their point with. 

More info here with some background.  Also, here is an article that discusses the growing movement of the Jewish vote from Democrats to Republicans.  Byrd's comments won't help Democrats.  He might also consider not following DigitalRoom's How to Win An Argument which points out that when being out-argued, one can't go wrong with the proverbial:

Compare your opponent to Adolf Hitler.

This is your heavy artillery, for when your opponent is obviously right and you are spectacularly wrong. Bring Hitler up subtly. Say: "That sounds suspiciously like something Adolf Hitler might say" or "You certainly do remind me of Adolf Hitler."

UPDATE: to those who asked, yes I am a programmer, ergo the use of a double equal.  It was entirely unintentional though - just habit.

Don't Steal the Salad at Chuck E. Cheese

or you'll get Tasered.

A Democrat Hopes Democracy in the Middle East Does Not Work Out

And some wonder why the right may think there is the little itsy-bitsiest reason to think that SOME on the left harbor unpatriotic sentiment. Best of the Web hilights a Jon Stewart interview in which Clinton aide Nancy Soderberg states "There's always hope that this might not work" in referrence to peace spreading throughout the Middle East. Soderberg also goes on to state that Democrats might still be saved by something going wrong with Iran or North Korea. "Well, there's still Iran and North Korea, don't forget. There's hope for the rest of us." Soderberg does ultimately grudgingly give praise to Bush and, admitedly, this is the Jon Stewart show where the interviewees are expected to throw out red meat to the overwhelmingly liberal audience. However, some of the thinking does seem to be particularly ingrained and it gives rise to some of the questions of patriotism by the right.

At least Jon Stewart has been forcing his Democratic viewers to come to terms with the concept that maybe, just maybe, President Bush was right in forcing Democracy on the middle east at the point of a bayonette. Of course, things still may ultimately fail and Jon Stewart won't have to face his worst nightmares, but is that way of thinking one that is going to win over the majority of Americans? Is there any doubt about the REAL reason the Democrats had their heads handed to them in November?

Bush Might Win on Social Security by Losing

When it comes to social security, Bush may have bitten off more than he could chew. Although at the beginning of the year, it appeared that he might be able to take on the third rail of politics, it looks like now he may get burned. Atrios makes the appropriate point:"why would any sane Democrat even think about trying to give him a victory on this issue when there's no chance of a reasonable plan making it out of a conference committee?"

From a short-term political viewpoint, Atrios is entirely right. There is absolutely no point in handing Bush a political win and from a historical viewpoint, this may indeed shape up similarly to Clinton's healthcare debacle. This is a case where Bush's communication skills may come back to haunt him since someone with more rhetorical nuance may be better positioned to sell the issues with social security. However, a complete failure by Bush to make any changes whatsoever should send shivers down the back of any supporter of Social Security. Democrats' positioning on the matter may insure that if they win, social security will eventually be gutted because they will insure no meaningful discussion of social security occurs within the next decade. There does not seem to be a middle ground - give Bush personal accounts while insuring the necessary tax increases or benefit cuts that social security requires so it won't collapse under its own weight.

Democrats have gone to the history book and have used what they learned during HillaryCare to craft their defense. The problem for social security's supporters is that similarly to the resulting political landscape after Hillarycare, if Social Security reform falls by the wayside after this attempt, expect that no meaningful political effort will be exerted on its behalf for at least 2-3 more election cycles (not to mention that no politician will touch Medicare, a program with infinitely more problems, with a 10 foot pole). Bush certainly won't bring it up again and I doubt another Republican president will dare touch the third rail, especially in a first term. A Democratic president will be even more hamstrung since a major part of the Democratic defense is that Social Security is not really in that bad shape and President Bush is simply exagerating and lying about the problems it faces. After all the Democratic rhetoric expended over the last three months, it is difficult to picture the American public suddenly taking a Democrat at his/her word should they turn around again and say Social Security is in crisis and MUST be fixed before it is too late.

That leads this country to the brink of when ss starts to call in its IOUs from other parts of government that can not pay and either drastic benefit cuts, tax increases, or age eligibility changes will have to be made. Social security will no longer appear as a benefit but will increasingly be seen as a burden, especially by a younger generation that feels it is getting the shaft. At that point, even Bush's mild prescriptions will be laughed at as quaint and the changes to social security may make it completely unrecognizable. At that point, my guess is the presecription will be to totally eliminate a large class of beneficiaries which will do far more damage to social security than private accounts as it would become seen as a welfare program and not a universal benefit.

If Karl Rove, being the evil genius that he is, wanted to gut social security, I doubt he could have come up with a better plan than what is shaping up in this fight. Either the Republicans get something they want tacked onto social security (private accounts) or the Democrats successfully defeat Bush and he still wins because social security gets further weakened as no serious attempt to fix its problems occurs for at least the next decade. And not to mention that by taking up social security first, if Bush loses, he has insured that there won't be much stomach by either side for the even larger Medicare battle that must take place.

UPDATE: Of course, I might be completely wrong about nothing happening this year. It could be that the pressure on politicians to do something may be too great as suggested by Alan Greenspan and that both sides will put down their political posturing and come up with a compromise solution.   Of course, that may be wishing for too much.  Even if Bush does not get his private accounts but is able to get Congress to agree on some type of reform, he'll be able to claim the mantle of the "saviour of social security."  I am not sure that is what either side wants - conservatives will not raise taxes (I don't see how any solution can not raise some taxes) and Democrats don't want to see a Republican, especially Bush, credited with saving social security. 

If nothing happens this year, I revert to my previous comments.

On another related point, I have been watching some of these congressional town hall meetings that the press continues to spout about and it is interesting to see how white and how old the meetings are.  Do people really believe that these meetings are "representative?"  My guess is that the AARP movtivation wagon has done a great job of getting its grassroots out and that most younger people, who are already very pessimistic about seeing much from social security, are too busy working their asses off to be able to attend.

UPDATE: The latest Carville strategy memo points to some of what I am talking about.  It notes that more people see Bush favorably as attempting to fix a big problem is social security than they see him as acting irresponsibly, even if they are not for personal savings accounts.  An interesting point that Carville makes hilights what I see as the biggest long term problem for the Democrats in their current approach: "To say there is no problem, simply puts the Democrats out of the conversation for the great majority of the country who want political leaders to secure this very important government retirement program.  Voters are looking for reform, change and new ideas, but Democrats seem stuck in concrete.”   Carville admits that in his polling, a majority of people, even if they disagree on personal retirement accounts, believe that Democrats "don't have any particular ideas around retirement."

The Rich and Farm Subsidies

Interesting to see who benefits from farm subsidies.

David Rockefeller, the former chairman of Chase Manhattan and grandson of oil tycoon John D. Rockefeller, who received 99 times more subsidies than the median farmer; Scottie Pippen, professional basketball star, who received 39 times more subsidies than the median farmer; Ted Turner, the 25th wealthiest man in America, who received 38 times more subsidies than the median farmer; and Kenneth Lay, the ousted Enron CEO and multi-millionaire, who received 3 times more subsidies than the median farmer.

I think Bush is doing the right thing by going after farm subsidies. They distort the marketplace and really just help a small group of people who don't need the help. However, this is such an entrenched subsidy that Bush will actually have to work to push this through. Its one thing to propose these cuts - its another to expend political capital on it. I think he's got political capital to spare, but my guess is that social security reform is more important and when push comes to shove, this is being used as a bargaining chip in the larger ss fight.

I Hate Republicans and Everything They Stand For

Spoken by none other than the probable new head of the DNC - Howard Dean.

Yes, folks, this is how the Democrats will recapture power. Sigh, this is going to be a long four years.

Genocie/Not Genocide

Maybe its just me, but does it really matter whether the UN calls what is happening in Darfur genocide or not? Only if you want to stick to the letter of the UN and avoid having to take responsibility for what is happening there.

Hillary Collapses

I really hope this was just the flu. The Democratic party needs the Clintons to knock some sense back into it. Of course, truthfully, I don't know that the "real" Hillary, who behaves as though she is further to the right of her husband would be all that welcome in the folds of the party once push came to shove. I still remember the vicious attacks on Bill Clinton from the left because he was a Republican in sheep's clothing. Of course, until he was threatened with impeachment, and then the ranks closed.