Reveling In Chris Christie


Ann Coulter has a new heartthrob, and his name is Chris.

Coulter endorsed New Jersey Governor Chris Christie at the annual Conservative Political Action Conference, claiming "If we don't run Chris Christie, Mitt Romney will be the nominee and we will lose." The bombastic arch-conservative also went on GOP TV to assert "I would say he's the only Republican who could win." Politico reports that she "slammed previous Republican presidential candidates, saying they 'can’t talk' and 'are not manly.' Reminded that Christie says that he won't run for President in 2012, Coulter replied "I don't care if he wants to run. His country needs him."

Christie was a big hit at the CPAC, where, Politico's Maggie Haberman observed, he remarked

Leadership today in America has to be about doing the big things and being courageous. You can't fix these problems if you don't talk about them.

The New Jersey governor, Haberman added,

suggested the items that Obama called for as “investments” in his State of the Union address were “not the big things” that need Washington’s focus.

“Ladies and gentlemen, that is the candy of American politics,” Christie declared, adding that it appeared to be a “political strategy” – or game of budgetary chicken – that both Republicans and Democrats are playing.

"My children’s future and your children’s future is more important than some political strategy," he said. “What I was looking for that night was for my president to challenge me … and it was a disappointment that he didn’t.

In another move touted as bold, Christie blustered "Here’s the truth that nobody’s talking about. You’re going to have to raise the retirement age for Social Security. Woo hoo! I just said it, and I’m still standing here. I did not vaporize into the carpet."

Washington guffawed, then swooned as the governor was witnessed displaying the courage to say what most of the mainstream media has been saying, as inaccurate as it is. To Governor Christie, high-speed rail is the "candy of American politics." Only a bold leader like he, however, can commit $261 million from a state he says is "broke" to complete construction of a half-built casino.

Truth being stranger than fiction, the "tough" governor from the Party of Family Values is subsidizing continued construction of a gambling hall because, presumably, it's a better use of funds than hiring back teachers or police offices laid off when he drastically cut state aid to municipalities.

Or may it's not partiality toward financing a business whose objective is to separate middle- and lower- class individuals and families from their earnings. NJ.com notes

another strange aspect of this deal. The prime backer of the half-finished Revel casino, Morgan Stanley, has put together a financing deal that relies on funding from the Chinese government. Yes, you read that right. The geniuses in Trenton are preparing to give a giant grant to a consortium of commies and Wall Streeters.

But as (New Jersey State Senator Mike) Doherty points out, both the Chinese and Morgan Stanley have plenty of money at the moment. Morgan Stanley got $10 billion in bailout funds, he said, so there’s no reason they can’t finish the project on their own.

"They’re always going to claim poverty," he said of the investors. "These guys have $42 billion in capitalization. This is just another shakedown from big business."

And Christie knows a thing or two about big business- and Wall Street:

In 1999, Christie registered as a lobbyist for Dughi and Hewit, the Cranford law firm where he was a partner alongside Bill Palatucci, a longtime ally now helping to run Christie's campaign. Palatucci was also registered as a lobbyist, and the two are the only lobbyists named on the firm's reports.

Quarterly and annual reports filed by Palatucci and Christie with the state Election Law Enforcement Commission list the clients represented by the firm, as well as the legislation it focused on in the Senate and Assembly. The clients included Hackensack University Medical Center, the Securities Industry Association, GPU Energy, the University of Phoenix and other education and economic development groups....

In an editorial, the Philadelphia Daily News suggested the deal

puts scarce and precious tax dollars in a highly risky venture: trying to prop up an industry that shares more characteristics with a soap bubble than anything else - shiny, pretty and expanding, but at some point, it's going to burst.

And calling it a "tax-reimbursement program" doesn't alter the fact that it's a gift.

It is a gift, moreover, that makes of the State of New Jersey a partner in an industry it regulates through its Casino Control Commission. Or rather, previously regulated, now that the state has laid off 115 of 144 inspectors prompted by a casino deregulation bill Christie proposed and proudly signed.

Ann Coulter can promote whomever she wishes for her party's nomination. But we ought to consider that endorsement in light of the individual making it, someone who not only believes being "manly" is a major qualification for the office, but who apparently finds this fellow from 2004 not quite masculine enough.

Share|

Wisconsin Workers: On God's Side?


Wisconsin's new governor, right-wing extremist Scott Walker, may be onto something.

No, not his proposal which, as Reuters describes it,

includes limiting state employee wage increases to the rate of inflation unless approved in a voter referendum. Public employees -- other than police, fire, and inspectors -- would lose many bargaining rights and could opt out of paying union dues after current contracts expire, with dues no longer collected automatically.

State workers will have to increase contributions to their pensions to 5.8 percent of salary, and double contributions to health insurance premiums to 12.6 percent of salary. Wisconsin's unfunded pension liability is $252.6 million, according to Moody's Investors Service.

Now, that's a sweet deal. Have your union negotiate your salary and defend you against a disciplinary charge- and not even have to pay anything in return to the organization protecting you against the State. Of course, with no one required to pay dues, eventually the union would evaporate and disciplinary charges would run amok.

Sure, the state employee unions in December made huge budget concessions to ease the strain on the state's budget. But these days, as state workers in New Jersey have found out, compromise is a one-way street when dealing with Repub governors.

But give Walker his due. Not because he has threatened to bring the National Guard up to restrain people who work for his state, but because of the explanation he gave GOP TV's Greta van Susteren (video below):

VAN SUSTEREN: You have the Guard on alert. Why, if that is true?

WALKER: No, in our case we have contingency plans that we put into place that are updated from where they were before. The National Guard is part of that. They would be part of that whether it is a snow emergency, tornado, earthquake, flood, anything else. And a work walk-off is part of contingency plan.

It is good and admirable for Walker to compare a work walk-off to "a snow emergency, tornado, earthquake, flood...." These are, as the governor must know, acts of God, events uncontrollable by human beings and in the view of many on the right, attributable in part or whole to the Almighty. Kudos, then, should go to Governor Walker for suggesting that the workers appalled by his plan to destroy their livelihood may in reality be doing God's work.






Update, 12:22 p.m.: David Dayen of Firedoglake reports that the Joint Finance Committee in the Wisconsin legislature has amended the budget repair bill (to which these proposals were attached), making it slightly less outrageous.

Share|

Working The Room


If you believe that, the old saying goes, I'll sell you beachfront property in Arizona. Or perhaps a snowplow in Arizona.

One of the best proposals in the budget unveiled by President Obama on Monday was one he did not make. There was no recommendation to change the index to determine (and lower) Social Security benefits, nor for gradually allowing the eligibility age to increase, nor for means-testing, or any other scheme to undermine the Social Security program. Instead, the President stated (transcript, in PDF, here)

In addition, I believe that we need to act now to secure and strengthen Social Security for future generations. Social Security is a solemn commitment to America’s seniors that we must preserve. That is why I have laid out my principles for reform and look forward to working with the Congress on ensuring Social Security’s compact for future generations.

Advocates of Social Security were uniformly pleased that no de facto cut in America's insurance program for the elderly and disabled was recommended. Reporting on a conference call liberals participated in Monday evening, The Huffington Post's Sam Stein remarked

Asked about the absence of those specific entitlement reforms during a conference call Monday evening, White House senior adviser David Plouffe appeared to even further confirm Obama's opposition to drastic alterations.

"[A]s the President said in his State of the Union, he views Social Security primarily as an issue about shoring it up for the long term as opposed to a deficit issue," Plouffe said. "And we talked a lot about this as far back as the campaign, but are very clear that if there are proposals out there that are acceptable, that don't reduce benefits, don't slash benefits, that don't affect current retirees, the President is open to proposals that would shore the system up in the long term."

Plouffe's inclusion of the word "reduce" alongside the pledge not to "slash" may have been an innocent rhetorical addition to a common administration talking point -- one used several weeks ago during the State of the Union address. But for advocates working to make current benefits sacrosanct and fretting that the White House had left the door open to either cost of living adjustments or other benefit "tweaks," it was noteworthy.

"Until now, Sen. Harry Reid was the top Democratic leader on the record saying that cuts to Social Security benefits were off the table in any form -- big or small, slash or tweak," said Adam Green, co-founder of the Progressive Change Campaign Committee. "If Mr. Plouffe's words are true -- that the White House opposes all reductions in benefits for current beneficiaries and future ones alike -- it's huge news. Such a position is overwhelmingly popular with Democratic, Independent, and Republican voters alike, and is the kind of boldness Democrats will need to show to win big in 2012."

Rest assured, Sam, Plouffe's inclusion of the word "reduce" alongside the pledge not to "slash" was not an innocent rhetorical addition to a common administration talking point. Probably, it wasn't innocent at all, but part of a shell game. You really were supposed to take note of the phrase "don't reduce benefits" and neglect to notice "that don't affect current retirees."

Take a look at all proposals- or rather, ideas that are floated in the media- to "reduce Social Security costs," as the euphemistic phrase has it. Whether from Simpson & Bowles, from their commission, from Republicans, or from Administration officials, the recommendations, directly or indirectly, exclude current recipients. That's unsurprising, given that the elderly have been benefiting from the program- and vote in disproportionate numbers. Young people are more vulnerable to the misinformation and disinformation from those who would prove to the mainstream media their Seriousness (with a capital "S") by asking for "sacrifice" by future recipients.

It is not healthy for a politician to admit to "slashing" or even "cutting" a program as popular as Social Security. Assurances from the White House and its Republican co-conspirators that they won't "reduce benefits" or "slash benefits" is of little import when there will be no admission that any change is a "cut" or "decrease."

Stein, Green, and others are too involved in the issue not to recognize the language of those who wish to undermine Social Security: in Plouffe's words, "shore the system up in the long term"; in Obama's words, "secure and strengthen Social Security for future generations;" in the words of House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan (R-Wis.), "to maintain the program’s significant role as a part of the retirement security safety net." If the President truly were committed to "America's compact for future generations," he might have noted that the system is relatively healthy, and far more so than the general budget. Or that politicians have been borrowing from it for years in order to finance tax cuts for millionaires. Or that Social Security adds not one red (or blue) cent to the deficit.

But he hasn't done that, and won't. He doesn't need to- not when Stein, Green, and so many other liberals (especially Democratic officeholders) want so-o (no typo) to believe he is that ol' community organizer and left-wing Senator whom conservatives describe. Instead, the President is determined to embrace and propagate the false narrative on Social Security as on other issues. And if the activists who understand the program refuse to blow the whistle, President Obama will continue to use them as fodder.

Share|

Uncomplicated Math, Likely To Be Ignored


"It's much less awful than the Republican proposal."

Paul Krugman thus assesses the budget proposal unveiled by President Obama yesterday. But then, that could be the slogan for the center-right Obama Administration: We're Not as Bad As Those Extremists Are.

And of course they're not. The GOP wish is for far more draconian cuts than the President has offered. South Carolina's Jim DeMint, chairman of the Senate Steering Committee, contends "The President has offered an unserious budget that ignores the warnings of his own bipartisan debt commission and.... would push us over the edge into generational debt." U.S. Representative Mike Pence of Indiana warned that "we must reject the fiscal recklessness and unsustainable path outlined in the President's budget and come together around the principles of fiscal discipline and reform and put our fiscal house in order."

Then they released the Tax Relief Certainty Act which, according to their press release:

■Make permanent the 2001 and 2003 individual income tax relief for all hard-working Americans — preserving the 10%, 15%, 25%, 28%, 33% and 35% income tax brackets, rather than allowing President Obama and Democrats to increase the top tax bracket to 39.6% and increase taxes on the lowest earning Americans in the bottom 10% bracket;

■Permanently repeal the immoral and unfair death tax, which increases from 35% to 55% on Jan. 1, 2013. Permanent repeal of the death tax would increase GDP by $118.8 billion and lead to $23.3 billion per year in new federal revenue;

■Prevent the tax increase on capital gains and dividends income for all Americans, rather than allowing the Democrats to increase the rates to 20% from the current 15%; and

■Permanently patch the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT).

No kidding- that was approximately two hours after Pence slammed President Obama for mere "talk of fiscal discipline." Presumably, they could have waited a day or two before obscenely contradicting themselves but, having little to fear from the Republican-leaning mainstream media, that would have been mere dawdling.

Cenk Uygur still of The Young Turks and now of MSNBC, put it sufficiently succinctly that even traditional media outlets, accustomed to reporting tax and spending issues from a conservative mindset, should be able to understand (transcript here):

(President Obama) has cut $200 billion over the next two years. Two billion in savings. That`s got to do it, right? That`s a huge amount to cut.

Well, as it turns out, again, let`s do math. I like math on this program. As you remember, they just had an $858 billion in tax cuts over the next two years. So when you subtract the $200 billion that they just cut from the $858 billion in tax cuts, well, you`ve got $658 billion to go and you still haven`t made it up.

So what I`m telling you is, these cuts that he`s doing, whether it`s Obama or it`s the Republicans, it`s not putting a dent in the budget because of the giant tax cuts. We keep focusing on the wrong problem. Let me prove it to you without a shadow of a doubt.

The projected deficit in 2011 is $1.6 trillion. The whole non-defense discretionary spending budget in 2010 was $477 billion. Do you know what that means? That means that if you took non-defense discretionary spending, OK, all of it, all of it, all of it, wiped it out to zero, that`s it, we cut everything outside of defense, you would still have a deficit that was over $1.1 trillion. You can`t cut your way to doing this. It`s so obvious.

Back in the 1970s, cynics would say of former Alabama Governor George C. Wallace (now deceased): well, at least he was honest about hating black people. Actually, he wasn't; during the period in which he displayed a notable distaste for blacks, he did not admit to racial prejudice. But his statements and actions were obvious, and obviously not meant to cover up racial animus. And so it is with the GOP and the debt; they won't explicitly tell us they don't care about it and won't own up to it but are not reluctant to make it evident. Unfortunately, unlike the last century's mainstream media, which had no compunction about shining the light upon George Wallace as a symbol of racial prejudice, this mainstream media is obsessed with an approach it believes is fair and balanced, but fails the fair and accurate test.

It is, therefore, up to the relatively tiny liberal wing of today's media to make it plain and simple. Whether a Republican or a Democrat, you cannot vote for a massive tax cut one month and claim two months later a religious devotion to cutting the deficit. That is, unless you want to endure the indignity of the mainstream media acclaiming you a "budget hawk."

Share|

Reaching Out, Maybe


Talking is not a bad thing, so it's at least a little hopeful that, as the Denver Post recently reported

Focus on the Family president Jim Daly on Friday said he will bridge a great divide by asking abortion-rights advocates to work with his conservative Christian ministry to make abortion less common.

Reproductive-rights supporters say they want abortion to be legal, safe and rare, Daly said, and so his Colorado Springs-based media powerhouse will try to walk that common ground with them — lessening demand for abortion.

The "let's talk" offer to reproductive-rights groups signals a sea change in Focus' uncompromising approach to the abortion issue. It is bound to engender controversy about whether detente advances or hinders Daly's ultimate goal of making abortion illegal.

However, it is in keeping with his makeover of the house that James Dobson built. Daly has said he wants the ministry, which it says reaches 220 million listeners worldwide with its daily broadcasts, to have more conversations and fewer fights.

And Planned Parenthood of the Rocky Mountains said it is willing to listen.

This may be the ocassion to trot out a cliche: trust everyone, but cut the cards.

It's understandable, and reasonable, that Daly would assure the readers of his blog "we'll continue to fight for the day that we can overturn Roe v. Wade." Nor is it surprising that a fervent abortion-rights opponent would claim "God is on our side," though, as Abraham Lincoln advised us, we need to be concerned that we are on God's side. And if Daly wishes to add "the majority of Americans is on our side," which is, at least as it pertains to the repeal of Roe v. Wade, blatantly untrue, it can be written off as just another activist claiming to be fulfilling the wishes of the people.

But spare us the effort of establishing moral equivalence between a legal procedure and what was an apparently horrific crime in Philadelphia created by a thoroughly greedy, amoral capitalist (Conservatives may squawk, this appears to be a case of the pursuit of private profit going unregulated by the state.) Daly, with the characteristic lack of shame or self-introspection of the right, argues abortion,

like we've seen with Dr. Gosnell, it's not even physically safe for the mother. That's not to mention the long-term emotional devastation that often accompanies this tragic choice.

But it's easy being sidetracked by an emotional incident (or series of incidents) unrelated to the larger issue. Abortion, once more physically dangerous than childbirth for the prospective mother, now is even safer for the mother than giving birth. Further, existence of "the long-term emotional devastation" has become very controversial. That is extraordinary, given that the woman who has chosen an abortion is subject to much of society asserting that she has committed murder. (No, the woman typically is not told "you have committed murder;" but it is characterized by many individuals as "murder"- and the woman made the decision.)

And then- as if you didn't see it coming- Focus on the Family spokesman Gary Schneeberger, according to the Denver Post, remarked

the ministry doesn't yet have the list of abortion-rights supporters it will contact, but Focus will reach out to that movement.

"It's something (Daly) is clearly very passionate about," Schneeberger said. "It's a 'Schindler's List' moment for us: How many lives can we save on the way to our goal of ending abortion? We don't know how it will be received."

There is little question how it will be received by the folks Mr. Schneeberger has just implied are Nazis. Oskar Schindler was a German businessman renowned for saving from concentration camps more than a thousand Polish Jews while Nazi Germany controlled their country. Yet- no, because of this- Schneeberger refers to the organization's anti-abortion activists as akin to Oskar Schindler. It is apalling, and not a little immodest. (Immodesty- is that a Christ-like virtue?) Frederick Clarkson notes

We have seen this Religious Right script too many times. The most notorious example for me was when Rick Warren, during a nationally broadcast presidential candidate forum hosted by his church, called for people on opposing sides in public life not to demonize each other. That sounded great until he called abortion a "holocaust" -- thereby casting those with whom he disagrees as Nazis.

Jim Daly, current honcho of Focus on the Family, told the Denver Post that he wants to have more conversations and fewer fights. It would be nice to believe that. But if he is going to convince anyone of his sincerity, his spokesman can start by stopping the Nazi analogies.

We can suggest, request, or implore, but it won't happen. The Nazi analogies go on and on and appear not to have marginalized the pro-life movement, or even the minority of its adherents sufficiently reprehensible to have invoked them. The answer is not to avoid discussion or to sink to the level of the extremists among the opponents of abortion rights; the left far less effectively demonizes its opponents. Hopefully, Planned Parenthood and other groups which might try to bridge the divide by entering into negotiations recognize that for their ideological adversaries, some issues are non-negotiable.

Share|

John Boehner, Uncharacteristically Right


"Even a stopped clock," the cliche runs, "is right twice a day."

John Boehner is not right twice a day. Or twice a week. And perhaps not twice a month.

But he is right about one thing- or at least was on today's Meet The Press. The line of questioning from host David Gregory presumably was prompted by the scandalous scandalous! finding several days ago by GOP consultant and voter manipulator Frank Luntz that many Iowa Republicans apparently believe Barack Obama is a Muslim. Running one of his famous focus groups (video below) following Bill O'Reilly's interview of the President, Luntz discovered that approximately half the Iowa Republican caucus participants in the group believe Obama is a Muslim.

Here is the relevant portion of the exchange (program transcript, here):

MR. GREGORY: As the speaker of the House, as a leader, do you not think it's your responsibility to stand up to that kind of ignorance?

SPEAKER BOEHNER: David, it's not my job to tell the American people what to think. Our job in Washington is to listen to the American people. Having said that, the state of Hawaii has said that he was born there. That's good enough for me. The president says he's a Christian. I accept him at his word.

MR. GREGORY: But isn't that a little bit fast and loose? I mean, you are the leader in Congress and you're not standing up to obvious facts and saying, "These are facts. If you don't believe that, it's nonsense."

SPEAKER BOEHNER: I just outlined the facts as I understand them. I believe that the president is a citizen. I believe the president is a Christian. I'll take him at his word. But, but...

MR. GREGORY: But that kind of ignorance about whether he's a Muslim doesn't concern you?

Advertise | AdChoices SPEAKER BOEHNER: Listen, the American people have the right to think what they want to think. I can't--it's not my job to tell them.

MR. GREGORY: Why isn't it your job to stand up and say, "No, the facts are these"?

SPEAKER BOEHNER: I am...

MR. GREGORY: Didn't John McCain do that...

SPEAKER BOEHNER: I, I, I just did.

MR. GREGORY: What you're saying, "It's good enough for me," is that really standing up and saying, for those who believe that or who would talk about that--you had a member of Congress, you had a new tea party freshman who was out just yesterday speaking to conservatives, and he said, "I'm fortunate enough to be an American citizen by birth, and I do have a birth certificate to prove it." That was Raul Labrador, a new--a congressman from Idaho. Is that an appropriate way for your members to speak?

SPEAKER BOEHNER: The gentleman was, was trying to be funny, I would imagine. But remember something, it's not--it really is not our job to tell the American people what to believe and what to think. There's a lot of information out there, people read a lot of things...

MR. GREGORY: You shouldn't stand up to misinformation or stereotypes?

SPEAKER BOEHNER: ...but, but, but, but, but I've made clear what I believe the facts are.

MR. GREGORY: But is, is it, is it because it weakens the president politically, it seeks to delegitimize him that you sort of want to let it stay out there?

SPEAKER BOEHNER: No. What I'm trying to do is to do my job. Our job is to focus on spending. We're spending too much money here in Washington. The president's going to outline this new budget tomorrow, that I outlined earlier, spends too much, borrows too much, and taxes too much. And the president wants to talk about winning the future. This isn't winning the future, it's spending the future.

George Zornick, blogging on thinkprogress.org, the blog of the Center for American Progress, does not agree. He finds the House Speaker's acceptance of Barack Obama as an American-born Christian insufficient and unsatisfying. He argues

Gregory directly accused Boehner of hedging because “it weakens the president politically, it seeks to de-legitimize him,” to which Boehner reacted with visible indignation. But it’s hard to imagine Gregory isn’t correct. Boehner and his fellow Republicans — like all politicians — always try to persuade Americans, and “tell them what to think” on a wide range of issues. Just minutes earlier, Boehner was warning against a deficit crisis he said is caused by Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, and told Gregory: “I think it’s incumbent on the leaders in Washington, those of us to go out and help the American people understand how big the problem is.”

Gregory maintains "you are the leader in Congress and you are not standing up to obvious facts and saying these are facts." Well, yes, he is saying these are the facts and yes, he is the leader in Congress- but not the leader of President Obama's party.

It is Boehner's job to persuade the American people that maintaining current benefits for the elderly is foolish, asking the wealthy to assume their share of taxes is wrong, deficit spending by the federal government is fine when the economy is humming along but destructive when it is needed to stimulate jobs, and the financial industry is being unfairly targeted by politicians who believe it bears major responsibility for throwing the country into a deep recession. The ideas are wrongheaded, but they are conservative, and that's the agenda- a policy or ideological agenda, as party leaders ought to set out.

Barack Obama's American citizenship and affiliation with Christianity are not part of the GOP agenda and it is not part of the responsibility of the the congressional leader of the opposing party to convince the American people of what is virtually indisputable. Boehner did his part, stating

Our job in Washington is to listen to the American people. Having said that, the state of Hawaii has said that he was born there. That’s good enough for me. The president says he’s a Christian. I accept him at his word.

You, dear and discriminating reader, are a Roman Catholic (or Protestant, Jew, Muslim, etc.) I know because- and only because- you say that you are. There really is no other way to know and your word is sufficient. You could produce a baptismal certificate but, as with Barack Obama, that really shouldn't be, and isn't, necessary.

Further if you assert that you were born in Indiana (or Kansas, Oklahoma, Rhode Island, or Hawaii) and the good folks in Indianapolis agree, that's good enough for me. I know that you're an Indiana-born Roman Catholic because you say that you are and, on the latter point, the state agrees.

That is all Speaker Boehner said. And all that needs to be said. Much of the left (such as this blogger on Crooks and Liars) seems apoplectic that top Republicans have chosen not to lead a crusade to convince their supporters of what, unfortunately, neither Barack Obama nor his supporters have been able to. It is, politically, a masochistic strategy. Telling the American people they are ignorant, then asking for their votes, is not going to win them over. John Boehner understands that and the left ought to, also.

Share|

Social Security, Not Compromised


Could the White House finally be learning? Not likely but (CLICHE ALERT) hope springs eternal.

The Wall Street Journal reported on February 11

The White House last month considered offering specific benefit cuts and tax increases to shore up Social Security's finances, but ultimately decided to back off.

Officials weighed suggesting that Congress raise the ceiling on wages subject to the Social Security payroll tax and allow benefits to rise more slowly than under current law, according to three people familiar with the deliberations. The hope was to engage Republicans in talks.

But aides decided against putting forward the ideas, sure to be unpopular, without a clear signal from Republicans that they were ready to talk. As a result, the budget President Barack Obama will release Monday won't include any specific proposals to alter Social Security.

A proposal to raise the ceiling on wages subject to the Social Security payroll tax would be interpreted, accurately or otherwise, as a tax increase and thus be dead on arrival (another cliche) in a House controlled by Republicans. (It is, after all, a a party which cut taxes when fighting two wars it approved of. And put much of the cost off-budget.) Then it would support benefits to rise more slowly than at present, and blame the cut in benefits on Democrats wanting to (another cliche) pull the plug on Granny.

Of course, cutting benefits isn't necessary, anyway. Blogging on Ezra Klein's site in late June, Dylan Matthews explains that Janemarie Mulvey and Debra Whitman of the Congressional Research Service (report, in PDF, here)

looked at this question in 2008 by evaluating three different proposals. The first would raise the cap so that 90 percent of wages are taxed (CRS estimates this would mean a cap of $171,600 in 2006) and pay higher benefits to those affected; the second would eliminate the cap and pay higher benefits; and the third would eliminate the cap for taxes but would not increase benefits.

Matthews presents two graphs: the first, illustrating the impact of the proposals on the acuarial state of Social Security compared to the current course; the second, illustrating how much of the shortfall is eliminated by each proposal.










































While all proposals, Matthews notes, "put a dent in the shortfall, completely eliminating the cap without increasing benefits actually creates a long-term surplus, and eliminating the cap while increasing benefits comes close."

Economist Robert Kuttner of Demos notes (report here, in PDF)

The shortfall in the accounts began appeared in the early 1980s because the 1970s turned out to be a dismal decade for wages, as well as a period of high inflation....

When the economy went back into recovery, wages never resumed their previous link to productivity growth. Only in the middle and late 1990s, when we experienced near-full employment did wage growth return to something close to its previous trend—and during that period Social Security’s projected finances improved dramatically. The simplest and most reliable cure for the modest short fall in the Social Security accounts would be to restore the historic link between the economy’s productivity growth and median wage growth.

We don't know, obviously, whether the link between increased productivity and wage growth will be restored, given the unholy alliance in the American political economy of Republicans and neo-liberals. Still, as Kuttner argues

Even if we cannot manage to increase median wage growth, a modest adjustment in the Social Security tax base would be sufficient to balance its accounts for the next 75 years. Historically, about 90 percent of wage income has been subject to Social Security tax. But as the income distribution has become more unequal, only about 83 percent of payroll is now subject to tax. High income earners are only taxed on the first $106,800 of their earnings. If we restore the tax base to its historic level, nearly half the shortfall disappears.

To give the Administration the credit I rarely do, this appears to be roughly what the President had in mind when, according to the WSJ

In the Social Security deliberations, the White House considered raising the ceiling, currently $106,800, on wages subject to the payroll tax each year. The tax hits about 84% of wages earned in jobs covered by Social Security. The White House contemplated pushing that to about 90%, which would mean taxing the first $180,000 of wages.

Congratulations, Mr. President- for recognizing the need to raise the cap. But don't stop there- remove it altogether. Social Security, not being a welfare program, is not, and should not, be needs-based. Wealthy people, as do middle class and poor people, receive Social Security. There is little reason, meanwhile, not to require payment of Social Security tax on all income, especially as, unlike the income tax, the percentage remains the same as income rises (reduced to 4.2% for the employee, still 6.2% for the employer, under the recently enacted tax bill).


If the President truly wants to strengthen an already strong Social Security system, he would be foolish to propose allowing benefits to rise more slowly than at present, raise (gradually or otherwise) the eligibility age, or cut benefits in any other manner. It would be akin to a football team's placekicker intentionally kicking the ball out-of-bounds, enabling the receiving team to begin its drive at the 40-yard line. Instead, Mr. President, kick it into the end zone, proposing the progressive changes which would benefit Americans, allowing most of them to live out their later years without falling into poverty. Then, if Republicans want to cut (by any other name) the program, you can make it clear which party is on the side of elderly Americans and of what is probably the most popular governmental program in history.

Share|