George W. Bush made an appearance before the Economic Club of Grand Rapids, Michigan, and stated that he would waterboard people and invade Iraq again if given the chance, proving that he’s learned nothing from his most profound mistakes. So, what does he regret?
Bush said his greatest disappointment as president was failing to push through Social Security reform, a major campaign issue of his in 2004. Bush said Republican leadership balked at the proposal, saying it would cost them votes: “And the leadership of our party looked at me and said no.”
I was thinking about that quote when it occurred to me that the Republicans wound up losing almost every seat in both the House and the Senate that they were likely to lose if they pushed through Social Security privatization. I honestly don’t think they saved more than one or two seats by telling Bush ‘no.’ They should have told Bush ‘no’ on a lot of things, including torturing people and invading Iraq. But, they didn’t.
What’s sad and frightening is that Bush is looking increasingly like a moderate within his party. Part of this is a result of the Obama administration’s inability and, in some cases, lack of will to change some of Bush’s policies. But, mostly, it’s just that the GOP has become completely unhinged. I was particularly impressed by the spectacle of Dick Cheney coming out against Rand Paul only to see Paul win a resounding victory. Cheney is beginning to look moderate, too. His position on gay rights is to the left of all but a small handful of Republicans. And he doesn’t doubt that the president was born in Hawaii or openly question the theories of evolution, plate tectonics, or climate change.
Bush and Cheney opened a Pandora’s Box on the right. McCain compounded the problem immeasurably by picking Sarah Palin as his running mate and forcing the right to defend his choice.
Before long, Glenn Beck will be asking his listeners to give up their stupid conspiracy theories and embrace reality.
Part of this is a result of the Obama administrations inability and, in some cases, lack of will to change some of Bush’s policies.
At the very least, he should be pounding on the theme that the Republicans made this mess, and now it’s left to the grownups to clean it up. Ray-gun pounded on that theme(regardless of the actual merits) and it worked for him. That’s one thing he didn’t learn from his admiration of Saint Ronnie.
Why?
They offer nothing. Every problem we have is either because of or made worse by the Republican incompetence of the bush years. They have no sane ideas. What was their last one? Oh yeah. “Drill Baby Drill”. Nice.
IIRC, privatizing Social Security was not a major campaign issue of Bush’s in 2004, not even a minor issue. It was something he pulled out of his hat in 2005 and rode around the country trying unsuccessfully to drum up support. The outcome of the election would probably have been very different if Bush had let slip his intentions before the election.
Honestly, I was too busy organizing vote reg and GOTV on the streets of North Philly, Abington, Norristown, and Pottstown PA to know what was a major theme in the campaign. All I remember is a flip-flopping wind-surfer commercial, a bunch Swift-boaters, and Osama bin-Laden’s endorsement.
If you don’t know what lies the other guy is pushing how can you motivate people to go to the polls?
It wasn’t hard to convince (mostly) black and latino folks to go to the polls to oppose a second Bush term. The main obstacle was their fear that the election would be stolen again so their vote wouldn’t count. I never encountered anyone who considered voting for Bush regardless of what his campaign said.
It’s too bad that Obama is going to play “Nixon in China” in gutting Social Security and Medicare. And all so Pete Peterson can collect more management fees for Black Rock’s managing the new privatized Social Security funds.
When is someone going to call out this deficit peacock scam?
Digby and cough Firedoglake cough have. For a while now.
Yes I know. But those someones don’t have the clout of the someones I was thinking about.
And with all the volcanic ash and oil fumes in the atmosphere, you really should get that cough checked.
that seems out of character for you. I grow weary of this conspiracy theory. It’s fine for our side to give no quarter rhetorically up until the moment we have to bite down and make a deal, but it’s actually no more than a negotiating position to say ‘don’t touch my Social Security.’ Of course it’s going to be touched. And it would be the height of irresponsibility not to touch it. So, go ahead and keep on saying that there is no crisis and we can’t raise rates, cut benefits, or extend the retirement age. But that’s b.s. The truth is, we don’t have the political power to impose our solution (means testing or tax on more income) so we have to cut a deal eventually.
There isn’t a “crisis,” BooMan. Does there need to be tweaking? Maybe, maybe not. We don’t know how much productive workers will be in 20 years, especially with the ability of technology to generate more and more wealth for everyone.
There is simply no need to “touch” anything with this amount of uncertainty 20-30 years into the future.
If there is, raise the retirement age by 1-2 years, and remove the cap on taxing SS for the rich.
Problem solved. No need to cut benefits, no muss, no fuss. As this problem is very easy to solve (not politically, mind you), and there is a great deal of uncertainty into the degree that it’s a problem at all, there is no reason for it to be dealt with NOW.
The real problem is Medicare. Medicare for all solves that. There, all deficit issues solved.
Yes, I know that we could ‘easily solve’ Social Security’s eventual insolvency by making rich people pay more into the fund. It ain’t happening without our side taking a haircut in either the retirement age or the benefits package. So, while there is no need to preemptively back down rhetorically, there is also no need to attack the president for creating a Commission that will hash out the compromise.
If our side does take a haircut a lot of people are probably going to die. Their hair is already so short you know.
Oh please. What the fuck?
Yes, we’re all going to die if anyone changes Social Security in any way. This kind of rhetoric is why I get so impatient with the left. It’s tiring enough having to listen to people complain that we can’t pass our priorities through Congress untouched and undiluted, as if you make miracles happen. But now I have to hear that modest changes in Social Security will kill everyone. Get real.
Except you’re not. and i am reasonably sure that if you asked say, Duncan Black, he’d tell you that “the crisis” is well overblown.
Don’t try to play the economist card with me unless you’re willing to give me credit for being right where most of them (the ones that the left likes to cite, anyway) have been wrong.
If you want to focus on the word ‘crisis’ go ahead, but it means very little. The issue is whether Social Security can be reformed so that it is on a sustainable path. If you want to kick the can down the road because it isn’t yet a crisis, that’s an argument you can make. But if you want to actually fix the problem instead of pass it off to the next president (who may be a Republican) then it doesn’t matter if it is a ‘crisis.’ What matters is what is a reasonable and obtainable compromise. There’s no reason for me to spell out what I am willing to give up, but I do acknowledge that I can’t get what I want and I will have to accept some degree of pain. The alternative is do nothing, which is what every president does.
But I don’t think you’ve been right on the economy. I just don’t, so why would i give you credit when i think you’re wrong? 650,000 pennsylvanians out of work, employment close to (if not higher than) 10%. banks rollign in bonus money. foreclosures still rolling in (just found out two of my friends are fighting foreclosure, i told them to mail in the keys). if that’s success…
and i don’t think you’re right on social security either. if the government wants to cut wasteful spending, the military takes up FAR more of our dollars than anything else.
if you’re rich or a banker, the bailouts have been a smashing success.
if you’re poor, unemployed, on a fixed income, not so much.
As you know i work in the nonprofit field as a grant writer. Over the past year or so, i’ve watched the “opportunities and deadlines” section of the Chronicle of Philanthropy shrink from 5-10 pages worth of RFPs to less than one. These RFPs are listed like classifieds, usually 5 columns of text per page, stretching from margin to margin. So when i say “less than one page” i mean maybe a column inch. that’s about it.
The grants are getting smaller too: three years ago, a $25,000 grant was average. Now, it’s more like $5,000.
so yeah, smashing success.
when did I predict that the economy would be strong in June 2010?
I don’t get your argument at all.
There’s really only three times I have disagreed with the progressive consensus on the economy.
The first was the vote on TARP which I supported. I knew all the problems with handing that money to Paulson with no strings attached, but we had no alternatives.
The second was on Geithner’s Plan, which involved TARP. It was basically an argument over the merits of nationalization and the likelihood of recovering our investment. I was right. Overwhelmingly right.
The third was over the size of the Stimulus package. I didn’t disagree with the numbers being floated about, and still don’t. I just noted that we only had 60 votes for what we got and it wasn’t the president’s fault that the bill wasn’t three times larger.
what was I wrong about? You don’t say because I haven’t been wrong. What I told people was that the nationalization of the megabanks was probably impossible, but even if possible, guaranteed to cost a staggering amount that we would never recover. And I also pointed out that hedge-fund managers and bankers would get rich off either scheme, so that wasn’t a compelling argument either way. I noted that Geithner’s Plan was not guaranteed to work and that it still could cost a staggering amount of money, but that it had at least a chance of success and the recovery of our investment. So, what happened? It turns out I was right that those AAA’s weren’t worthless and the money has basically been paid back in a year. Compare that to the catastrophe we were guaranteed if we nationaized!!
The fact is that these economists wanted nationalization on principle, because they deserved it. But thank God the administration didn’t listen to them.
the banks were saved. if that’s your only measure of success, and it seems to be, then whoopee.
hoorah. of course, bernanke comes out today and says the banks still aren’t lending, so businesses don’t get loans, and unemployment remains high.
whooooopee.
We can’t raise rates; the political structure of the commission and the Congress won’t allow it. “No new taxes” is still a mantra that strikes fear into Democrats and backbone into Republicans.
Therefore the choices are cut benefits or extend the retirement age. Those of us who have had our 401(k) plans gutted by unemployment or the meltdown in the underlying stocks will be taking it once again. There are a bunch of us who have Social Security as our only income as a result of previous Wall Street collapses.
And given how Pete Peterson made out privatizing federal pensions, it is not a conspiracy theory to think he”s come back for a second bite of the apple.
And James Clyburn thinks we need to go to means testing. Well, that introduces incredible administrative overhead and stigmatizes Social Security recipients, making it even easier to do “welfare reform” for seniors.
Raising rates by ending the cap on payroll tax would be means testing, but because it would cause the well-to-do to pay it is not going to be considered. Because Erskine Bowles, whose background in finance, and Alan Simpson, who is a “no new taxes” Republican will immediately write it off.
You might be tired of “this conspiracy theory” but your income is not hanging in the balance.
You’re wrong.
Raising taxable income will be a necessary part of any successful compromise. Everyone will have to take a haircut. No deal is possible that doesn’t have that core philosophy.
sure everyone will take a haircut. you keep telling yourself that.
just like everyone took a haircut in the bailouts. except OOPS they didn’t.
Raising taxable income will not mean eliminating the cap on payroll taxes, it will mean bumping up the payroll tax rate, maybe to 7.75%. The only question is whether that will be for both employers and employees or on employees only.
I don’t believe that everyone will take a haircut. There are lots of deals Congress could make that would hold the well-to-do harmless. Any Congress that cannot automatically extend unemployment insurance and permit folks with over 99 weeks unemployment to get benefits is perfectly capable of screwing those on Social Security.
Three months ago I wouldn’t have thought there was any other thing than tampering with Social Security would again be the third rail of American politics. With this Congress (and your predictions are the next one will be worse), I am very concerned.
And unlike you, it is not an abstract issue for me.
I predict that the cap will be raised. If it isn’t, the compromise will not pass. Payroll % may be raised, too. I don’t doubt that.
Raised, not eliminated. That still keeps it hitting some level of the middle class.
Do you think that the cap will be indexed to wage inflation?
well, of course they’re not going to eliminate the cap, nor should they. The cap only exists because it is self-evident that anyone making a lot of money isn’t going to need their SS check anyway. That principle still applies. We don’t need anywhere near that kind of revenue to keep SS solvent and it wouldn’t be fair anyway.
I’m all for higher marginal tax rates and higher capital gains taxes. But there should be an upper limit on how much income is exposed to payroll taxes. We should raise that limit to the point where we’re solvent and then cap it there.
But we can’t pass something that puts all of the exposure on the wealthy. We just can’t. So, we take a nibble here, they take a nibble, another nibble comes out somewhere else. That’s why they call it a compromise.
I am absolutely staggered.
I don’t need a war in Iraq, but I am effing paying for one, even on Social Security. So are Social Security benefits going to be non-taxable income?
Well “can’t” in the sense that this Congress won’t nor will the likely successor Congress.
That’s why they call it plutocracy. I’m not compromising; my representatives are capitulating contrary to my wishes that the compromise be better than 99% for the wealthy and 1% for everybody else.
I’ve effectively paid into my parents’ generation’s Social Security and into my children’s generation’s eduction, not to mention the in-between generations in both cases. But we have gotten to the point that that social contract is now broken because the wealthy control the Congress.
And we shouldn’t be unfair to the wealthy! Sheesh, BooMan.
Look. Taxing income in a progressive fashion is fair up to a very high level. We used to have a 90% top rate income tax and the country prospered. I don’t have a problem with taxing the rich. But I do have a problem with a millionaire $62,000 a year in return for a Social Security check. If you want to raise revenue, do it somewhere else. That’s what I meant by ‘fair.’
Man, that is such rightwing propaganda I can’t believe you’re parroting it. The GOP line has always been that “my SS contribution is for me, not for the unworthy working poor”. It was never “in return for a Social Security check.” One can argue about the level, but your statement of principle is absolutely mind blowing. You really need reminding what SS is all about?
I’d prefer that SS deductions be dropped entirely in favor of a return to Truman-era income tax brackets (including capital gains) and an end to the swiss cheese of loopholes in the corporate tax. But as you would be quick to point out, we don’t have the power to do that, so nobody should even open their yap about it.
Dave, are you seriously suggesting that we impose a 6.2% tax on an unlimited amount of income for Social Security? I’d be fine with raising the highest marginal tax rate by 6.2% or even more to pay for our debt and our obligations. But the principle there is that those who can afford to must fund the government, and the more you make, the more you should give back for the benefit of everyone. Social Security is a generational contract, not a wealth transfer. You pay when you’re able-bodied so that you can have a secure retirement. Millionaires don’t need to worry about a secure retirement, so as long as the fund is solvent, they should be under no obligation to pay on an unlimited amount of income. Raise the cap to where’s it solvent. Trust me, that won’t actually take much of a rise in the cap.
So you’re terrorized by the thought of changing a regressive tax into a flat tax. Very strange. Like I said, I’d prefer income taxes returning to a 90+ percent top bracket (including capital gains) and corporate taxes becoming rational, then financing SS out of general revenues shunted into a trust fund. In lieu of that, I see no problem making SS deductions a flat tax. That should be the Democratic starting point, with raising the cap to the point of solvency the last-ditch compromise, which doesn’t include messing with benefits or retirement age.
I still don’t get why you think it’s OK for those making $200,000 or whatever to pay a flat SS tax, but a horror of horrors for those making $2,000,000 or $200,000,000 to do the same.
PS — you probably know the site was just down for half an hour, and on and off for most of the week?
Terrorized? No. Money is money. But there is a right way to do something and a wrong way. How big is the SS check going to be for a family that has paid over 60,000 a year into SS for a couple decades? And what’s the point? I presume you don’t want all that money available for deficit spending…you want it locked in a trust fund, right? So, let’s just create a ginormous trust fund of rich people’s money that we’ll give back to them when they’re 65 years old? Why pull all that money out of circulation?
It feels to me like you are just in a mood to take money away from rich people. That’s understandable, but there is smart way to do that and many dumb ways. I think an unlimited flat tax for SS is truly a dumb idea.
And here is where I’ll agree with you on this issue. Once again, another reason I dislike blind populism. It’s a pitch fork at the rich kind of deal without thinking of the other consequences.
Oh so now we’re going to start worrying about whether we’re being “fair” enough to the upper classes? Should we put that plank in the next Dem platform?
How would raising the cap “put all of the exposure on the wealthy”? SS would still remain the most regressive and unfair tax we have. But by all means let’s “nibble away” at the benefits side because at least that ain’t a Tax Increase so we won’t have to worry about the ghost of Howard Jarvis dripping poison on us.
raising the cap could pay for everything. In fact, that’s what we should do. But if we could just raise the cap we would have no need for a commission.
We have two arguments:
I think both those arguments are lame.
Sure, we can kick this down the road and avoid making compromises. But we’ll make them eventually because eventually it will be a crisis. So, why not deal with it now while we’re in power?
OK, so you admit anything that comes out of this will be a “raw deal”. In which case, yeah, kick it on down the road. There are far more pressing problems to take a hit for than this. If Reps want to mess with SS down the road let ’em try it.
The BS is claiming that, since we don’t have the political power to push through a Democratic solution, our only choice is to degrade the system further by settling for a Republican one. Our side is supposed to be about making it better, not making it worse in order to pacify the tax/government haters. “We” don’t have to cut a deal to make Republicans happy. Let them do it themselves when they get the chance, and let them pay the price.
Have you noticed how you’ve capitulated to the Right? More and more your argument is that we shouldn’t take any chances on anything that has the potential to put the GOP back in charge. So the more stupid, sociopathic, and destructive they are, the bigger they win. Not a viable political strategy for our side.
I agree with you to a point.
My number one priority is keeping the Democrats in power. If passing absolutely nothing accomplished that, I’d support doing nothing. That’s how concerned I am about the prospect of the current incarnation of the GOP. I am more concerned about them than any other issue, including the Gulf Spill, the Korean Peninsula, the Middle East, or any item on the president’s agenda.
However, I believe the way to keep the Republicans out of power is to have some political successes, keep the base engaged, and show that you can govern effectively. That doesn’t work if you just pass whatever the GOP will accept. So, you have to do the best you can and sell the result as best you can.
And if you’re product is defective, make sure people understand where the blame lies for that.
As to Social Security, the issue isn’t making it worse. It’s making it solvent or passing the buck. I understand that progressives are gearing up for a fight (as they should) to protect the retirement age, the tax rate, and the benefits package. But, as part of that, they’re taking a no compromise, this isn’t a crisis, hands-off-my-benefits approach that is ultimately unrealistic. I’m fine with fighting with all your might for your position. I’m not fine with bashing the president for addressing the issue and realizing that achieving solvency requires a compromise by all parties.
Then let it come to a crisis. If Obama can’t get anything less destructive than further limiting benefits or raising the retirement age, he should stay out of it. There’s no win among the options you name, either as policy or as politics.
If political success means fixing what ain’t broke yet by destructive compromise, then you’re not going to keep the base engaged. Healthcare was something new, so there was room to compromise and still achieve a start toward something worth crowing about. SS is something old. If the only “solutions” are to constrict it or privatize it, leave it alone unless you can make it better.
Agreed 100%. It might even be entirely solvent by then. Why are we going to slash and bend over (again) for something that’s projecting 20-30 years into the future with very low uncertainty? Same with the deficit and debt in general, especially when the fix is slashing the military and extending Medicare for all (and ensuring a way for medical school to be affordable, so we don’t run into a doctor shortage).
“I was thinking about that quote when it occurred to me that the Republicans wound up losing almost every seat in both the House and the Senate that they were likely to lose if they pushed through Social Security privatization.”
Someone needs to remind the current President about what happens when you fuck with social security.
As for the rest, the GOP did indeed open up Pandora’s Box, and it’s been quite the eye-opener.
It’s going to be REALLY interesting when people who don’t know anything about governing and don’t believe in objective reality ascend to power.
You’re right: Bush is certainly a moderate in his party, in foreign policy terms. His real problem is that he was totally unsuited to be President in terms of his temperament (impatient with details) and experience (one does not imagine he was a hands-on governor in Texas).
It seems pretty clear in hindsight that he was presented with a scenario: GW, all you have to do is show up. You can be Governor. We’ll handle the details. We make our own reality. When you’re President, GW, the key is to rally the people. Nothing does that better than a quick, successful war. We’ll jump on the first pretext. Don’t worry about it: we’re the experts, and Iraq will be a cakewalk, and you’ll win a second term in a landslide. Nobody will oppose your policies, and you can do what’s really important–make capital available to our class by privatizing Social Security.
Bush is not one to admit a mistake, but it’s clear that he realized he’d been sold a bill of goods and that, though he won’t admit it, he is aware that the two wars are an unmitigated disaster, for the country as well as his class (witness the massive deflation of stock value). I’m convinced that he (and Rice) prevented a war with Iran. Had he continued to listen to Cheney, it surely would have gone that way.
I don’t think this is a flattering assessment.
How can you say Bush is moderate in foreign policy? He invaded two countries for no rational reason, signed off on torture, illegal detention and worse, and set a new standard for lying about the reasons for his policies.
It’s true that he’s intellectually inadequate, a useful idiot like Reagan, but let’s not make that an excuse. Like so many voluntarily ignorant playboys, he bought the rightwing line and its mental ecology hook, line, and sinker. Given his pornographic enjoyment of the Texas death penalty, it was no leap for him to send killing machines to other countries for no reason or to institute Guantanamo. What more could he have done if he wasn’t a “moderate”?
Moderate in his party is what meant, following the original post. Not clear that that was my meaning from the comment alone. Also, I don’t think Bush had much to do with any actual policies. I do think he really wanted to privatize Social Security and put Harriet Miers on the Supreme Court. Those were his two ideas as far as I can tell.
The real problem with the Republican Party is that the people you vote for are not the people who will be running government when they rule. The politicians are fronts for the policy makers. With Democrats, the actual politicians do matter. Bush as President was so awful not only for the policy disasters–two absurd wars for starters–but for the precedent his tenure set for the country’s political future.