DLC/Third Way Go Against
Los Angeles Times: Social Security Battle Likely
Not that it will register with the Crank Caucus online, but the DLC and the Third Way Senate group are coming down on the opposite side of Bush's Social Security privatization plan. Not a shock to some of us, even though the DLC has historically favored a private element of Social Security for years.
The difference now, as I've stated before ... deficits. Bush took to the campaign trail in 2000 saying he had these wonderful plans for the surpluses we had under Clinton: part of it for Social Security privatization and part of it for tax cuts. Well, turns out the tax cuts were bigger than he let on and the surplusses vanished under the combined weight of those cuts, a war, and business scandals. Tough luck, George ... there's no more money to give away. Besides, Bush showed his true colors when he turned down a worthwhile idea by Lindsay Graham to increase the tax ceiling for payroll taxes.
That's not to say there's not some ideas that can be incorporated to strengthen Social Security. The index change is likely a good idea, even though the left will hammer it for reducing benefits. But I think if you combined that with a private add-on to Social Security, you'd have a win-win ... put Social Security on a better footing and allow for people to benefit from private market returns.
But that's not quite what the other side is really after ... is it?
UPDATE: Kudos to Josh Marshall for serving as honest broker between the New Dems and Crank Caucusers ...
Before proceeding, a side note: Democrats have plenty of things more important to do right now than to fight amongst themselves. And I know a lot of readers of this site have strong suspicions or negative feelings about the DLC -- in some cases because of very real policy differences. But members of a coalition party have to strive to celebrate moments of agreement at least a bit more than they rush to clamor over the inevitable disagreements. So maybe take a moment to give these guys (DLC and Third Way) some encouragement for doing the right thing.
Comments
I'm with you on Graham's idea to raise the payroll tax cap. I think that would have gone a long way to solving the actual shortfall that the CBO projects over the next 75 years. Of course, you're right that I'm very much opposed to changing the way we index the benefits. It may not seem like that big a deal, but over the long haul benefits would be half of what they would be if we just did nothing.
Of course, I don't advocate doing nothing. I take the tack that AARP is in this year's legislative agenda. They had their annual meeting to discuss that agenda which was broadcast on C-SPAN today and I'm sure you can find some of the things they advocate on their Web site www.aarp.org. I'm all for minor tweaks over a long period of time, starting now, that we can do to make the system solvent indefinitely.
I've also heard some ideas about a national 401k plan to go on top of SS. I'm not sure logistically how it would be done without some of the same problems projected by mass investing in the markets, but the idea seems very attractive to me. If I saw some numbers that looked good, I'd be happy to endorse it.
Posted by: Nate | January 5, 2005 06:43 PM