Wednesday, December 15, 2004
Stand Together or Else
Josh Marshall has a great post up regarding the coming battle over Social Security reform, which you should rush over and read right now. It contains a paragraph that we all ought to memorize if there's a chance we'll be talking politics with our families over the holidays:
Then again, maybe I should be. Liberal Oasis reported yesterday on new Democratic Majority Leader Harry Reid's plans to launch some investigations in the New Year, into things like contract abuse in Iraq, and his promise not to go quietly if the Repugs try to change filibuster rules to ram conservative judges through the Senate. LO and Josh make a similar point in very different ways: that an important task for Democrats is not just standing in opposition, but keeping their members from going off the reservation to support Republican bills. We've seen this over and over in recent years--red-state Democrats, or those who want to be perceived as statesmanlike or bipartisan (especially in the Senate), throw in with Repugs on different pieces of legislation, and they often do it for a pretty cheap price. The Repugs make a small change in a bill (snipping out something they may have put in as a bargaining chip to be thrown away anyhow, for instance) and the Democrat who insisted on the change can go back to his district, particularly if he's in a red state, and say "Look what I did." Even if what he did was give bipartisan cover to a piece of legislation no small fix can fix. As Josh observes, solidly Democratic opposition to the Social Security "reform" would help make the issue look more like the ideology it is than an honest attempt to serve the public interest, which it isn't.
Recommended Reading: Your mouth to God's ear, John.
Josh Marshall has a great post up regarding the coming battle over Social Security reform, which you should rush over and read right now. It contains a paragraph that we all ought to memorize if there's a chance we'll be talking politics with our families over the holidays:
The Social Security "crisis" is manufactured; there is no crisis. To the extent there are long-term financing problems, the president's plan will gravely worsen them. The problem we face isn't over Social Security, which continues to run up huge surpluses (just as it was intended to under the early-80s reform), but that our non-Social Security budget continues to run massive structural deficits. Or rather, it has returned to running massive structural deficits after getting into the black in the late 1990s through the combined exertions of a Democratic president and a Republican congress. Social Security isn't the problem, but rather George W. Bush's reckless fiscal policy.Marshall also gives advice to Democrats about how to fight the battle, which if the party has any sense at all, they'll take. So I am not optimistic.
Then again, maybe I should be. Liberal Oasis reported yesterday on new Democratic Majority Leader Harry Reid's plans to launch some investigations in the New Year, into things like contract abuse in Iraq, and his promise not to go quietly if the Repugs try to change filibuster rules to ram conservative judges through the Senate. LO and Josh make a similar point in very different ways: that an important task for Democrats is not just standing in opposition, but keeping their members from going off the reservation to support Republican bills. We've seen this over and over in recent years--red-state Democrats, or those who want to be perceived as statesmanlike or bipartisan (especially in the Senate), throw in with Repugs on different pieces of legislation, and they often do it for a pretty cheap price. The Repugs make a small change in a bill (snipping out something they may have put in as a bargaining chip to be thrown away anyhow, for instance) and the Democrat who insisted on the change can go back to his district, particularly if he's in a red state, and say "Look what I did." Even if what he did was give bipartisan cover to a piece of legislation no small fix can fix. As Josh observes, solidly Democratic opposition to the Social Security "reform" would help make the issue look more like the ideology it is than an honest attempt to serve the public interest, which it isn't.
Recommended Reading: Your mouth to God's ear, John.
