Dems about to cave on Social Security

From Josh Marshall last night's TPM.  Here's the link

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2005_04_17.php#005458

For starters, you may have seen this AP story that ran over the weekend, which read: "House Democrats have decided to quit emphasizing that they will not negotiate changes to Social Security until President Bush drops his idea for private accounts. The switch in strategy comes after Democrats learned from focus groups that people frown on the lawmakers for being obstinate."

Where to start?

Here we are winning the debate and the issue and they are about to lose for winning.  The Democratic elected officials are just clueless cowards with their fingers in the wind.

Call your own representative and tell them they are fools.  I called Nancy Pelosi's office to complain; told them I have given this party thousands and thousands of dollars and my checkbook is closed if they do this.  I gave them my name and address and asked for a response.  

We keep losing because we go by polls and focus groups into of leading with our principles.  We look weak because we won't fight for our principles.  And if we do this we are weak.

Her phone number is 202 225 4965.

Read Marshall's post and try to change these idiot's minds.  I am so furious I am barely coherent.

•  They aren't about to cave.

  They are simply altering their communication style on the issue.  Please read the actual article. Thank you.

  by Cheez Whiz on Mon Apr 18, 2005 at 08:18:33 AM PDT

  •  right you are-not caving

    I sent email to Reid.

    by seesdifferent on Mon Apr 18, 2005 at 08:29:59 AM PDT

  •  What many don't realize is that

    all too-often polls/focus groups are conducted not to tell the candidate/officeholder what to think, but how to sell an agenda or program.

    by Newsie8200 on Mon Apr 18, 2005 at 08:35:27 AM PDT

  •  This Is About the 500th...

    ..."Dems caving on Social Security" diary I've see in the last three months.  

    by DHinMI on Mon Apr 18, 2005 at 09:20:01 AM PDT

•  Are the Democrats TRYING to lose?

  Seriously, if the Democrats don't stand for Social Security, what do they stand for? I mean, this isn't some crazy lefty idea, this isn't controversial in the "red states," and there's no real reason to change their views! If nothing else, the public is behind the Democrats on this issue. If we don't stand firm on this, this will force the public at large to assume the Democrats have been made chumps of, AGAIN. People don't vote for chumps. People vote for parties that stand for something.

  by metal prophet on Mon Apr 18, 2005 at 08:21:01 AM PDT

•  Read The Story

  
  House Democrats have decided to quit emphasizing that they will not negotiate changes to Social Security until President Bush drops his idea for private accounts.

  ...

  Democrats say they are united in opposing a plan they contend would break a social contract by shifting Social Security from a government-guaranteed benefit to a personal investment subject to the risks of the market.
  

  i.e. they're going to start talking about what they would do more and just bashing on bush less.
  

  by FleetAdmiralJ on Mon Apr 18, 2005 at 08:24:01 AM PDT

  •  The Dems should say nothing.

    Case closed.  They don't have to say anything.  It's Bush's job to make a proposal, not their obligation to make one for him.  As to obstruction, there hasn't even been a debate.  They should stop consulting pollsters and start thinking things through before the pop off their mouths.

    by Knut Wicksell on Mon Apr 18, 2005 at 08:33:00 AM PDT

  •  Dangerous

    / they're going to start talking about what they would do more and just bashing on bush less./

      Dangerous strategy, given the current climate and our minority status.  If the Democrats begin to engage in substantive debate, making formal proposals, they run the risk of fueling a debate they are sure to lose.  Simply criticizing Bush, which has made his proposal completely unpalatable, is the only realistic tactic.  By offering alternatives we inadvertently acknowledge "the looming crisis", giving urgency to legislation.

      I think it far more desirable to continue the bashing strategy, speak in generalizations and wait until 06 when Democrats may have some muscle to really do something.  We all know that it is not crucial something is done this year, why fall into a trap we are sure to end up regretting.  Negotiation from a position of complete weakness seems risky indeed.
    

    by Stevo on Mon Apr 18, 2005 at 08:35:48 AM PDT

    •  Bashing sucks

      it makes you look like "hahaha you suck...but we dont have any idea of our own"  thats the point they're making.  Even if we say "just leave it alone" thats better than having absolutely no plan.

      by FleetAdmiralJ on Mon Apr 18, 2005 at 08:37:07 AM PDT

      •  Bashing can be incredibly effective

        If bashing is done correctly, it can prove to be a powerful force. But, bashing Bush too much can be counterproductive, for the simple fact that he's not running for re-election. Instead, let's bash Republicans in general. Let's make Republican and conservative as dirty words as they've made liberal.

        by metal prophet on Mon Apr 18, 2005 at 08:41:11 AM PDT

        •  Key words

          "if done correctly"

          While I think we've done a good job getting our point across, there are still two outstanding points:

          1. While saying that Bush's plan wont solve the "crisis", people still seem to believe that there still is a crisis.

          2. Given that 1 is true, and that Dems have no plan of their own, they're being seen as political opportunitists or, as the article said, just playing "politics as usual" instead of trying to address the problem.

          Now, we have two choices...address #1 or address #2.  The article didn't say which they were going to do, but it looks like they're going to do one of them.

          by FleetAdmiralJ on Mon Apr 18, 2005 at 08:46:00 AM PDT

          •  address number one is the only viable

            strategy.  I have said all along that only dealing with private accounts left us vulnerable to being outflanked with the solvency issue. We should have been saying all along there is no solvency issue either.  Whch there isn't.  

            Doing the second is going to get some form of Social Security phaseout passed by George Bush.

            This is a losing tactic.  and it loosens the bonds of discipline the 2 Dem leaders have on their caucus.

            by debcoop on Mon Apr 18, 2005 at 08:55:14 AM PDT

            •  Not necessarily.

              What if they are trying to get Bush to come out of the closet with a plan and then preparing to jump all over it?

              You have to understand something about the way Reid thinks: He was a boxer once and he thinks like one. The goal is to get the Republicans to propose a plan, any kind of plan. Then, they counterattack and blow the plan right out of the water.

              by Eternal Hope on Mon Apr 18, 2005 at 09:00:37 AM PDT

      •  Don't fall for it

        I can almost give a 100% guarantee that any bipartisan agreements will be flushed out of the final bill by the House-Senate reconciliation committee before W signs it. Anything good, goes away. All that is left, will be crap.

        It is a stupid trap.

        by fight2bfree on Mon Apr 18, 2005 at 08:44:45 AM PDT

      •  Only Option

        We are in opposition, suck or not it is foolish to try to enact legislation when you are numerically challenged.  Unfortunately, when in the minority, the only realistic strategy is to stop the majority from enacting legislation that you deem harmful.  In this instance, we are winning the argument, there is no stomach for privatization, why mess with that reality, especially when anything more is unrealistic.

        by Stevo on Mon Apr 18, 2005 at 08:50:17 AM PDT

•  The new Democratic communication needs to be

  1. There is no issue to discuss unless and until the Bush-led GOP actually presents a social security "reformation" plan for them to analyze.  Bush tossing out "privatization" and "crisis" just aint gonna cut it when he is proposing the radical alteration of one of the most successful governmental programs in operation today.  This is social security, not new highway signage.  "Um, something has to be done" is not enough to call oneself engaging this issue.  No GOP plan, no discussion.

  2. If and when the Bush-led GOP actually produces a mathematically correct plan, the talking point needs to be "This is not the correct president to reform the small issues needed to ensure that social security remains solvent.  No one running record governmental deficits and whose Medicare plan is costing us at least three times its estimate should be allowed to come within a mile of social security, period.

  I don't give a shit what the focus groups are saying; leaders construct positions and inform the populace.

  by GN1927 on Mon Apr 18, 2005 at 08:28:28 AM PDT

•  Unfortunately JMM's post is

  spot on.  And I am not, by any means, one of his die hard fans.  But in this instance, with his long work on the SS issue... I will assume he did some beating of the (Democratic) bushes over the weekend.. and did not care for what he heard.

  His analysis of where Democratic strategy is at, is also on the mark.  Pity.

  Democrats need to smarten up, study up, show up and DO BETTER.

  by Marisacat on Mon Apr 18, 2005 at 08:30:29 AM PDT

•  You should really change your diary title

  The title of your alarmist diary does not match the content of the article Josh links to and you quote from.  Yes, the article does say that the Dems plan to: "quit emphasizing that they will not negotiate changes to Social Security until President Bush drops his idea for private accounts."  But that does NOT mean that Dems will negotiate w/ Bush on personal accounts, let alone that they are "about to cave on Social Security."  Whether you EMPHASIZE "something" or not, does not correlate with whether you are doing (or not doing) that "something."

  There is plenty to critique the Dems and the Dem leadership about.  This is not one of them (at least not yet).  

   

  by kelvinchapman on Mon Apr 18, 2005 at 08:31:32 AM PDT

  •  I am not changing the title

    why?

    because "changing our communication strategy"  is the same as changing our strategy.  

    At least that is how it looks to the American public.

    Josh Marshall is not an alarmist.  And this is a seriously dumb change in tactics which can rhetorically be used against us.

    If we are not vocally and overtly declaring our principles and defending our tactics behind those principles, then when the Republicans ram through proposals on Social Security in House and Senate committees, we will have no rhetorical leg to stand on.

    We not only need principles to win, we have to articulate and defend them to win.

    by debcoop on Mon Apr 18, 2005 at 08:49:47 AM PDT

    •  even so

      "changing strategy" does not equate to "caving in"

      by FleetAdmiralJ on Mon Apr 18, 2005 at 08:50:42 AM PDT

      •  It amounts to tossing out

        4 aces and drawing random cards.

        It is tossing out a strategy that has been winning because of a focus group.  

        Bipartisan cooperation is the kind of crap these groups always say.  

        But when you act like leaders on principles they care about, then they see things in a new way and have more respect for the proponents of those principles.

        We have just framed ourselves as obstinate rather than principled. Talk about shooting yourself in the foot.  

        by debcoop on Mon Apr 18, 2005 at 09:10:52 AM PDT

  •  Noted in passing

    Kossack Dems are now accepting the Bush language and framing:

    "But that does NOT mean that Dems will negotiate w/ Bush on personal accounts"

    Can we at least stick to Privatization, if not piratization?  Buying into the "personal accounts" language is buying into language that gives Bush at laeast a 10% advantage in the polls.  But I guess it's not "moderate" and "centrist" to use any language that George Dubya Bush doesn't use, and God forbid we be anything but "moderate" and "centrist" when it comes to dealing with the "moderate" and "centrist" Bush policy proposals.

    by Dancing Larry on Mon Apr 18, 2005 at 09:55:49 AM PDT

•  Can we not pile on the Democrats just yet?

  If House Democrats move beyond conciliatory words to reporters, and actually start toying with Democratic Social Security plans during this poisonous Administration, I'll worry. I don't think they will.

  For now, I'm getting good-and-damned-well-tired of hearing screams of "betrayal!" every time a Democrat tries to move beyond "hurt-little-puppy" mode to actually engaging with political reality. Don't you imagine this vague quote has more to do with heading off charges of 'obstructionism' in 2006 than with actually caving on Social Security, the Democrats' one huge win in recent Congressional battles? In this fight, we have two goals: protect Social Security and increase Democratic representation in Congress. We can pursue both without abandoning either.

  Let's see how the Democratic leadership handles this development. And let's not be so quick to assume that our elected Democrats are dumber than a bag of hammers.

  by Valentine on Mon Apr 18, 2005 at 08:39:41 AM PDT

  •  I didn't say they were dumb

    I said they make choices with their fingers in the wind ( which was generated by the Republican spin machine) rather than making decisions based on principles and policy.

    by debcoop on Mon Apr 18, 2005 at 08:57:31 AM PDT

  •  What if

    we had piled on the DC DEMs when Gephardt in that Rose Garden appearance (6/02) stated that whatever GWB wanted to do with Iraq was okay by him?  By waiting to see what the rest of them would do, we ended up with not only a war with no purpose or end (a very expensive one that we cannot afford) but also big losses in subsequent two election cycles.  The majority of Americans (56%) were not sold that war was the answer right up until the bomb over Baghdad began falling.  That was the baseline position of a majority in this country and that is why the poll numbers for the war was not worth it keep rising and will soon reach 56%.  That was a stable position because it was contrary to what dominated the media during those days and there were few major spokespersons presenting an alternative voice.  This was a majority in search of a leader.

    So, why should I have any confidence that the DC DEMs will hear the majority on Social Security?  They didn't on Schiavo.  And BushCo is relentless in pursuing their agenda.  They have dug in for the war -- not just for the first few battles.  The DC DEMs don't just have to hold the line on this for the next year but all the way through the 2006 elections.  And if they can't pick up seats then, the war will be lost.

    by Marie on Mon Apr 18, 2005 at 09:12:53 AM PDT

    •  Cmon Marie

      Don't you know that we need to be moderate and centrist and forge bipartisan compromise with the good folks on the other side of the aisle?

      by Dancing Larry on Mon Apr 18, 2005 at 10:00:33 AM PDT

      •  What can I say,

        after being beaten up so thoroughly here for over two now to get with the program and join the DEM wimp parade, I can only be both stupid and stubborn.

        by Marie on Mon Apr 18, 2005 at 10:11:49 AM PDT

•  Folks, stop panicking.

  Are they saying they're not going to oppose privitization? Or are they saying they're framing the issue differently? They're two different things.

  by Eternal Hope on Mon Apr 18, 2005 at 08:57:21 AM PDT

  •  Words matter

    If they frame it so something has to be done, then damn it, the white House and the Republicans will use it to cry hypocrites and obstruction and then ram a bill out out committee, and then destroy Social Security in the House Senate conference.

    If we stand and articulate our principles then we win on the issue and maybe we get Dems elected because they look like strong and they stand for something.

    by debcoop on Mon Apr 18, 2005 at 09:00:19 AM PDT

    •  Not if we filibuster it in the Senate.

      We have the votes to filibuster. Even Lieberman and the other conservative Democrats are on board. I did a diary on the 31 Democrats who voted for both the estate tax and bankruptcy bill and most of them are against the Bush plan; none of them has come out in favor.

      They're calling us obstructionists anyway.

      by Eternal Hope on Mon Apr 18, 2005 at 09:04:09 AM PDT

•  The debate is already on...

  and SS does need to be addressed from a solvency standpoint.

  So this is like a bar fight, where the bully (W) tries goad the peaceable patron (Dem) into a fight.  The peaceable patron replies, "back off," and tends to his drink.  Chagrined, the bully starts badmouthing the peaceable patron to the rest of the bar, and chucks a beer bottle at the innocent party.  At this point, the once former peaceable patron stands up, cracks his knuckles, and replies, "ok, motherfucker, let's throw..." and proceeds break the bully's nose with one punch.  Now the bully, sensing his perilous predicament, calls the patron a cheap shot artist, to which the patron replies by landing a nice jab to the ribs followed by a haymaker to the face.  Now the bully, embarrassed, bloodied, and beaten, laughingly attempts to plead a truce with the patron, who replies "Truce?  Fuck you.  You wanted a fight, bitch.  Get up, coWard.  Bring it on."

  In other words, a Democrat-led effort ensuring SS solvency would be a massive fucking defeat to W and his guv'ment hating, SS despising zealots, and the more they tried to spin it, the more pathetic they'd look.

  by jre2k8 on Mon Apr 18, 2005 at 08:57:37 AM PDT

  •  THERE IS NO SOLVENCY CRISIS

    I WILL SAY IT AGAIN

    THERE IS NO SOLVENCY CRISIS.

    THE TRUSTEES INTERMEDIATE SCENARIO WHICH PREDICTS THE SHORTFALLS IN 2017  AND 2042 HAVE CONSISTENTLY BEEN WRONG IN THE LAST 20 YEARS.

    THEY HAVE BEEN TOO PESSIMISTIC.

    THE 3RD, "OPTIMISTIC" OR "LOW COST" SCENARIO HAS ALWAYS BEEN RIGHT IN TERMS OF PREDICTING THE FUTURE.

    IN THAT VERSION SOCIAL SECURITY IS GOOD UNTIL THE NEXT CENTURY.

    THERE IS NO SOLVENCY ISSUE AND WE CAN'T LET THE RETHUGS USE IT TO WIN AND PHASEOUT SOCIAL SECURITY

    by debcoop on Mon Apr 18, 2005 at 09:05:00 AM PDT

    •  There's a demographics "crisis"

      and only an idiot wouldn't see that.  The ratio of younger workers to older retirees is growing lower, and lower, and lower.

      Burying your head in the sand and YELLING ABOUT IT won't change that equation.

      by jre2k8 on Mon Apr 18, 2005 at 10:21:50 AM PDT

•  I can't see what is wrong in this nuance

  AP: Democrats say they are united in opposing a plan they contend would break a social contract by shifting Social Security from a government-guaranteed benefit to a personal investment subject to the risks of the market.

  "I'm happy, we're happy, to talk to the president about Social Security if privatization is taken off the table, period," Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid of Nevada told reporters last week.

  To me, it sounds that Reid is saying that we may always talk.  Should he use words of Administration describing talks with North Korea (was it Bolton?): "we will talk, but we will not negotiate"?  I do not know what kind of position change or even tactics change it is.

  I can imagine the following rather clever tactic:

  1.  Stress that "we are happy to talk".

  2.  A little later, complain "we would be most happy to talk, but the Administration does not present any plans."

  3.  If they present plans, then compain in earnest about the awful details, say, extra deficit, or whatever it is.

  This plan is predicated upon an assumption that Bush is much more vulnerable when he committs himself more precisely to any kind of plan.  If the plan is close to rumors, it is awful and provides plenty of attack ammo, if it is very distant, then it is already 50% of success, and probably it is stil awful.

  Bush wants to control the timing of the disclosure of the details, and this aspect of his plans requires some countermeasures.

  by Piotr on Mon Apr 18, 2005 at 09:01:48 AM PDT

  •  Yet another Kossack

    using the preferred "personal accounts" language.  

    As Shanikka once said, "Folks don't get it."

    by Dancing Larry on Mon Apr 18, 2005 at 10:05:09 AM PDT

    •  personal investments

      is what I used INSIDE THE QUOTE FROM AP.

      Should I change the quote?

      In a wider perspective, we got burned by some craven behavior of Washington Dems, most recently, mass defection on the vote on bancruptcy bill.  Even so, Harry Reid seems to be an able leader, and I would always think first "does it make any sense" before joining a condemnation.  At the moment, I trust Reid a bit more that Marshall.  Both are good men and both may err.

      Again, one does not have to follow or surrender own opinion.  But Reid did some good things and he deserves a tentative assumption that he knows what he is doing.  
      

      by Piotr on Mon Apr 18, 2005 at 10:23:20 AM PDT

•  Not caving at all

  They are not caving. They are trying to present themselves as someone willing to resolve a problem rather than be considered "obstructionists." Their message to Bush is simple - take the privatization off the table and present some ideas since you initiated the SS campaign, and we will be happy to work on them with you. It's the same message they've always had - just less confrontational.

  by Tsarrio on Mon Apr 18, 2005 at 09:16:01 AM PDT