Ezra Klein: SS Pessimism

« Bastards | Main | Why Won't They Self-Correct? »

March 09, 2005

SS Pessimism

The reason Bush is unexpectedly content to let Social Security privatization simmer (and continue inflicting damage on him) until 2006 is that he might win it. Yes, I know, Democrats are ecstatic about the great successes we've had in the battle thus far, but it's nowhere near over. What scares me about it, actually, is how closely it resembles the fight over ClintonCare.

Yeah, I'm aware that health care is supposed to be linked to Bush's side of aisle, making it a parable on the dangers of transformative legislation. But Democrats are really the ones tracking it most closely. Clinton, of course, started out way ahead on health care, and indeed retained that lead till quite late in the fight. Democrats too have pulled into an early and commanding lead on Social Security privatization. But what matters is what comes next. In Clinton's case various other priorities and problems (Whitewater, etc) cropped up, weakening the president and, crucially, delaying the final push on health care. That time frame gave the right and its business-based allies time to mobilize, to put their ad campaigns in gear, and begin changing minds. That same coalition supports, indeed, needs, privatization to go through, and with Bush in office and Republicans in the majority, they're going to be willing to spend more money and air harder ads because they're not afraid of reprisals. In order to give them time gear up for the fight, Bush, with his power to set the agenda, is letting Social Security hang out for awhile, even if it looks damaging for Republicans. My guess, such as it is, is that come early 2006, Democrats are going to start seeing the $200 million Bush's backers have promised to spend appearing in their districts. With that sort of money, an enormously targeted campaign, run mostly by corporate-funded 527's, becomes possible, with vulnerable members of the House and Senate experiencing an absolute saturation of attack ads, all of which are understood to click off if and when the pol agrees that personal accounts really are the wave of the future.

That's why I'm not as sanguine as Josh about bringing this to the voters. Given the two plans, I have no doubt which they'd vote for. But given an overwhelming ad campaign in districts unused to such air warfare and unsure about their incumbent, minds can be changed. Not necessarily on the plan, but then, minds don't need to be changed on the plan. They just need to shift, or appear to be shifting, on the incumbent, and s/he'll quickly do what's necessary to make the pressure stop. So in a fair world, I'd be quite stoked to see this one dragging out until 2006. But Republicans aren'[t stupid -- if they're letting it hang around, they've got a reason. My fear is that we don't have a response.

March 9, 2005 in Social Security | Permalink

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
https://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341c572d53ef00d8345745b569e2

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference SS Pessimism:

» Social Security: Who's optimistic, who's pessimistic? from E Pluribus Unum
Josh is optimistic: nationalize the issue and let the people decide in 2006. Ezra is pessimistic: he's not sure the Dems could stand the air bombardment. What do you think?... [Read More]

Tracked on Mar 9, 2005 2:01:18 PM

Comments

Well, they are giving us some help with our ad campaigns. As Max Sawicky points out - the new bankruptcy bill will probably allow them to take your personal account if you get into debt. That should make for some fun ads. Also divorce.
Your ex-spouse gets half your personal account; you get the full reduction in your guaranteed benefit and only half your personal account. Yeah, that works.

But your point is well taken. Even if they let it drop for now, we shouldn't.

Posted by: flory | Mar 9, 2005 12:40:16 PM

I'm worried, but not for the same reason. I'm afraid that cowardly Democrats will buckle if they see an election with an actual policy issue separating them from Republicans. The American people have thus far shown an excellent ability to see through the bullshit, but the really inexcusable sell-out on bankruptcy has convinced me that Democratic spine on SS is coming from outside the congressional party, not within. I could easily see them buckle in the face of a real campaign. And then Bush has won before the battle's even started.

Posted by: Marshall | Mar 9, 2005 1:01:37 PM

I agree that it's not over by a long shot, but what's all this about how the "real campaign" hasn't started yet? As if Bush and company haven't really been trying so far? And I don't think Dem spines on SS have been coming just from outside Congress (though obviously outside voices have been critical). The bankruptcy whoring is with regards to an issue that isn't as widely perceived to affect everyone (not to minimize its actual importance), but pretty much every voter knows about SS.

Posted by: Haggai | Mar 9, 2005 1:14:20 PM

I also don't agree with Ezra on this:

"But given an overwhelming ad campaign in districts unused to such air warfare and unsure about their incumbent, minds can be changed. Not necessarily on the plan, but then, minds don't need to be changed on the plan. They just need to shift, or appear to be shifting, on the incumbent, and s/he'll quickly do what's necessary to make the pressure stop."

This seems too process-centric to me. If they're bombarding districts with phase-out stuff, and yet phase-out is very unpopular, they're not going to win. Why would Dem incumbents be tempted to sell out Soc. Sec. in order to "make the pressure stop", when they're on the same side of the issue that the voters are on?

Posted by: Haggai | Mar 9, 2005 1:24:42 PM

But they don't have to bomb districts with phase-out stuff. They can bomb districts with anything aimed at weakening the incumbent, an assault that will stop when the pol agrees to vote for phase-out.

Posted by: Ezra | Mar 9, 2005 1:38:02 PM

If it isn't the Democrats who run ads scaring the bejezus out of marginal incumbants when spring-summer-fall 2006 rolls around, then we really don't deserve to pick up seats.

Ezra, what were you saying yesterday about playing defense while the other side plays offense. If this isn't the issue to turn the Dems into the Phoneix Suns of politics, there isn't one, and there will never be one.

There simply cannot be defeat on this issue. It's unthinkable; I can't imagine what happens next if the Dems lose. The blogs and the activists and people who care about liberal politics and policy have decided to lash themselves to the ship's wheel on this one. So, we're all in it, and the outcome should be, will be, had better be victory. We're Japanese admirals on this now already. So let the GOP bring it. I sure hope they do.

Posted by: SamAm | Mar 9, 2005 1:40:20 PM

I dunno about that, Ezra. If they can bomb districts and win seats that way, why would they care about linking it to phase-out? And why would any Dem actually believe them, if they said "vote for phase-out and we'll stop"?

Posted by: Haggai | Mar 9, 2005 1:43:35 PM

Democrats should beat the Idiot President to the punch. While his plan "hangs out," as you put it, Democrats should come up with a good solvency plan, and start pushing it on the people. How about a 5% increase in benefits or something? We change around the idiot's tax cut and more benies and positive attention become very possible. Steal their thunder and we win. But the democrats are too stupid and scared to try anything like that, and they'll probably screw this up, just like everything else. Here's where we see if Howard Dean can live up to your expectations, Ezra.

Posted by: Tony | Mar 9, 2005 1:57:45 PM

" But Republicans aren't stupid -- if they're letting it hang around, they've got a reason"

You don't have to be stupid to make political mistakes, even huge political mistakes. Have the Democrats made any mistakes in the last 10 years? {Pauses] Does that mean that every one of them involved in those mistakes always makes mistakes and never gets anything right?

We're doing this optimism-pessimism dance thingy, Ezra, but I suggest taking comfort in the idea that just because Aaron Rowand has a hit in 16 straight games going into this season, it doesn't mean he is going to get one in No. 17. He may just corkscrew himself into the chalk, 4-5 times. Of course, as an unrequited Sox fan, I certainly hope not.

Posted by: Nash | Mar 9, 2005 1:58:21 PM

A day or two ago I would have been inclined to disagree with Ezra. But today, after watching 14 Democrats vote with the Republicans on that hideous bankruptcy bill, I have no confidence in any Democratic members of Congress.

Posted by: Bulworth | Mar 9, 2005 2:07:08 PM

Posted by: Bulworth | Mar 9, 2005 2:07:49 PM

Pessism's well and good, but you can't help but be amazed at how fucking poorly Republicans have acquitted themselves thus far. I was expecting that privatization would win an awesome boost after the State of the Union speech, especially as it coincided with the Iraq elections and some high Bush approval. I was expecting some Democrat or another to buckle after Bush's multi-state blitz immediately after the SOTU. I was expecting those millions of dollars of Progress for America Voter Fund ads I'm seeing on cable to swing the debate.

All this has happened, and not only has support for Bush's version of the plan gone down - support for the IDEA that we need to reform SocSec immediately has gone down.

I'm convinced that this proposal is just too lousy to benefit from any PR campaign - the more people hear about private accounts, the less they like it. Spend $2 million promoting them in a swing district and voters will hear $2 million of reasons not to vote for the Republican.

Posted by: Dave Weigel | Mar 9, 2005 2:13:13 PM

Ezra- with all due respect, relax and enjoy the fight.

We have to win on the big issues if we are to retake political control of the Country. We could not ask for a better place to start.

As far as I am concerned, Social Security for Democrats has the potential to be what abortion and gun control are for the Republicans; line in the sand issues to turn out and motivate the base. We should embrace the opportunity to compete on this turf, not fear it.

Tom O

Posted by: TomO | Mar 9, 2005 2:23:05 PM

This thing went over like a turd in a punchbowl. Out of arrogance, Bush overextended himself. Now is when you counterattack. . . if there's any fight left in the dems that is. If not, then its days as a national party are over.

Posted by: Brian | Mar 9, 2005 3:48:04 PM

I hope so and, believe me, I've been enthused over our actions thus far. But Ifear we're not moving forward with it. There's a reason Bush hasn't made any oves to take the target pff his back -- he's buying time. My concern comes from the fact that this has happened before. Last time we stalled on completing a major legislative battle, the intervening time allowed our enemies to mass and destroy us. Considering that the battle lines are the same, the financial disparity similar, and the agenda once was again being stretched out, and I'm starting to see unpleasant echoes of 1994. We've either got to kill this plan dead or widen the fight. What we can't allow is for a deadlock to develop, with the president and his folks a bit behind, but able to breakthrough the war of attrition with an enormous cash offensive, aimed at vulnerable Democrats at exactly the moment they're scared of their own shadows. With Bush allowing this to drag towards 2006, which most thought he'd desperately avoid doing, that scenario seems most likely. In that case, we have to stary preparing.

Posted by: Ezra | Mar 9, 2005 3:48:20 PM

One thing to consider if Bush is planning on lying low for a few months: the American economy can't keep going on the way it's going forever. The Asian banks are currently paying for our ever-increasing mountains of debt, but they can't and won't do it forever. A lot of people are now saying that there's a better than even chance that the dollar's going to get hammered in the not-too-distant future, and inflation is going to go through the roof. If this happens before BushCo complete their gutting of SocSec, what effect it will have? And if they want to get the SocSec $$$ into Wall Street *before* the crash comes, they can't just sit around and twiddle their thumbs.

Posted by: Geoduck | Mar 9, 2005 8:14:32 PM

sh.SEXMOVIES sh.SEXMOVIES