« Kondracke Vs. The Facts | Main | Airport Blogging »
November 27, 2006
The Imaginary Administration
Just as the pundits supported their personal, "imaginary war" in Iraq, they're supporting an imaginary era of bipartisan compromise and Bush administration seriousness now. Brad DeLong points out such an instance in Sebastian Mallaby's flight of fantasy on Social Security:
Sebastian Mallaby does not know whether or not the Bush administration's decision makers are more concerned with Social Security's solvency than with promoting an "ownership society": he does not know who the Bush administration's real decision makers are. Sebastian Mallaby does not know whether or not Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson has the "heft to sideline ideologues": Paulson will certainly try, but O'Neill and Snow tried before him and failed. Sebastian Mallaby does not know whether the Bush administration will be willing to "make concessions" on economic policy issues like Social Security reform: the Bush administration probably does not know itself, yet.
Mallaby hopes that all of these will be the case. And he hopes that by confidently asserting that they are the case, he increases the likelihood that they will become the case. So he confidently asserts that they are the case while still clueless about whether what he is writing is right or wrong.
Use Occam's Razor: Two years ago, Bush was reelected with an apparent mandate and a pliant congressional majority. His first priority, it seemed, was Social Security. In that debate, he proved interested in nothing but private accounts, which had nothing to do with solvency. He never switched course. He never sat down with the Republican leadership and emerged with a solvency deal. And all of these oversights occurred while Bush stood at the height of his powers and with, essentially, full control over the legislative product. So why does Mallaby think that Bush will be more interested in a Democratic product focused on the financial issues Bush showed no interest in?
Because Sebastian Mallaby has dreamed up an entirely new, entirely imaginary Bush administration with imaginary administration officials and an imaginary approach to policy. And, just like all the pundits did with the Iraq War, he presents his imaginary world not as a hypothetical or a hope or a dream, but as cold, hard, fact.
Imagine that.
November 27, 2006 | Permalink
Comments
It's worth it to take that ten minutes to see if the pundit being assailed is really being represented correctly.
Sebastian Mallaby does not know whether or not the Bush administration's decision makers are more concerned with Social Security's solvency than with promoting an "ownership society": he does not know who the Bush administration's real decision makers are.
I don't know what evidence DeLong could have for the last part. As for the first part, Mallaby says it of "top administration officials," and gives a link to an article with comments supporting the claim. He doesn't say that those who will ultimately decide hold this view (after all, the President is "the decider"), but he appears to have reasonable grounds for what he did say.
Sebastian Mallaby does not know whether or not Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson has the "heft to sideline ideologues"
DeLong gives a bit of reason to doubt Mallaby's claim, but he doesn't show it to be wrong; he just claims Mallaby doesn't know. That doesn't entail that Mallaby is "clueless" about it, or intoning it to make it more likely. Mallaby may have good reason to suppose the old powers have shifted into the background and that Paulson will have more heft than they, given the factors cited in the article linked to.
Sebastian Mallaby does not know whether the Bush administration will be willing to "make concessions" on economic policy issues like Social Security reform: the Bush administration probably does not know itself, yet.
Neither does he say they will. He says, what DeLong seems to agree with, that they may.
Because Sebastian Mallaby has dreamed up an entirely new, entirely imaginary Bush administration with imaginary administration officials and an imaginary approach to policy. And, just like all the pundits did with the Iraq War, he presents his imaginary world not as a hypothetical or a hope or a dream, but as cold, hard, fact.
You're talking about an imaginary Mallaby, based on borrowings from DeLong's imagination, rather than the hard facts of what Mallaby actually said. I read Mallaby's piece and it seems reasonable to me.
Posted by: Sanpete | Nov 27, 2006 5:08:24 PM
I read Mallaby's piece too and DeLong has it precisely right: The graf in question is speculative and hopeful. Some blind officials offering tempting promises of a deal? Where's the beef? And why is Mallaby so ready to rush in, evidence-free, and assume good faith?
History matters. The Bush administration's record matters. And to be as hopeful as Mallaby on as little evidence as he's offered -- and lord knows administration officials can spin -- requires your own personal conception of the Bush administration, one that totally ignores their record and history.
Posted by: Ezra | Nov 27, 2006 5:25:02 PM
I don't know if Mallaby is being clueless or intentionally misleading.
Bush didn't "leave open the possibility of lifting the income cap." Mallaby also states, as fact, that to "fix" SS's solvency "problem," future benefits will need to be cut. The only problem with that statement is that there is only a problem with SS if one buys all of the numbers and interpretations of those numbers advanced by the privatization crowd. I would think that journalism's slaveish devotion to "he said, she said" reporting would compel Mallaby to include the many economists, politicians and officials who do not agree with this.
Mallaby then cites Gene Sperling's ideas as evidence of how Democrats "are enthusiastic about other ideas for personal retirement accounts that just don't have 'Social Security' in the title." How creating a government program from scratch that provides 401(k) accounts manages to be the same thing as replacing Social Security with private retirement accounts is beyond me. One of these would - apparently, I haven't read Sperling enough to know - give millions of lower-income workers additional retirement options on top of their Social Security benefits. The other option - the evil one - would take guaranteed benefits and turn them into possibly higher, probably (given administrative costs they don't want to admit to) lower Social Security benefits with no other options.
Honestly, if anything Ezra and Delong are treating Mallaby with far too much leniency. This column was produced by either an incredibly inferior intellect or a liar.
Posted by: Stephen | Nov 27, 2006 5:54:37 PM
"Sebastian Mallaby has dreamed up an entirely new, entirely imaginary Bush administration with imaginary administration officials and an imaginary approach to policy"
So are you saying it was an imaginary Treasury Secretary who said "No preconditions"? And it was also imaginary "administration officials" who said that "the White House is willing to listen to other ideas." And it was an imaginary director of the Office of Management and Budget who said "We're in a listening mode"?
Imagine that.
Posted by: ostap | Nov 27, 2006 6:07:42 PM
Ezra, "speculative and hopeful" is very different from "clueless" and "evidence-free." The latter charges, and the others I quoted, just aren't borne out by what Mallaby actually said, as I pointed out specifically. You may disagree with Mallaby's hopeful approach; I have no beef with that; it's something reasonable people can disagree about. But that doesn't make the bulk of what either you or DeLong said about the imaginary Mallaby true of the real one. Mallaby gives a link to some of his evidence, which deals with changes relevant to your concerns about the Bush record, which he obviously doesn't totally ignore.
On a more practical level, would you prefer that no compromise be sought? Or is Mallaby right to at least try to see a way?
Bush didn't "leave open the possibility of lifting the income cap."
Stephen, what do you base this on?
Mallaby also states, as fact, that to "fix" SS's solvency "problem," future benefits will need to be cut. The only problem with that statement is that there is only a problem with SS if one buys all of the numbers and interpretations of those numbers advanced by the privatization crowd. I would think that journalism's slaveish devotion to "he said, she said" reporting would compel Mallaby to include the many economists, politicians and officials who do not agree with this.
Please direct me to one of these economists. I've heard disagreements about when and how solvency problems will arise, but not about whether they will arise if no changes are made.
The benefit cuts Mallaby suggests would be cuts in growth of benefits, while not cutting those for the low-income.
How creating a government program from scratch that provides 401(k) accounts manages to be the same thing as replacing Social Security with private retirement accounts is beyond me.
It isn't; that's the point. It increases the ownership society, but not at the expense of Social Security.
This column was produced by either an incredibly inferior intellect or a liar.
I don't see any evidence of that.
Posted by: Sanpete | Nov 27, 2006 6:23:05 PM
I think again you're missing the context. Mallaby isn't a newborn babe, the Bush administration wasn't elected two weeks ago. To say the things Mallaby is saying, with the credulity he's offering them, requires, in fact, a total disregard of all historical evidence. Indeed, it looks to me that the available options are either that Mallaby is clueless, as DeLong puts it, or mentally invested in a political realm that he's largely dreamed up, as I have. That he's just forgotten the past six years may be a possibility, but it strikes me as rather slim.
Posted by: Ezra | Nov 27, 2006 6:27:44 PM
To say the things Mallaby is saying, with the credulity he's offering them, requires, in fact, a total disregard of all historical evidence.
I can't see that. It appears you place great weight on some evidence, and none on the evidence he cites.
Even if he were clueless, though, the plain fact remains that the particulars of most of what DeLong said don't accurately reflect what Mallaby actually said. Accuracy matters, as you have said.
Posted by: Sanpete | Nov 27, 2006 6:40:21 PM
Stephen, what do you base this on?
Nope, you show me how Bush actually said he would consider lifting the income cap. Mallaby made the first claim, and you have at least implied that you agree with this claim. The ball's in your court.
Please direct me to one of these economists.
How about Max Sawicky? Here's his bio, in case you were wondering about his credentials.
It isn't; that's the point. It increases the ownership society, but not at the expense of Social Security.
Mallaby declares that Democrats are willing to go along with personal retirement accounts as long as they don't have "Social Security" in the title. That is not explaining a policy difference, only that Democrats have a problem with certain words and can be convinced by mere rhetoric (never mind how insulting it is).
That you or I or even Mallaby might understand that Sperling isn't talking about private SS accounts doesn't matter. What matters is how they are made to sound like the same thing, with only a small rhetorical difference between them. Please let me know, without just assuming Mallaby's good intentions, how his description of these accounts can be anything other than misunderstanding the subject or willful deception.
Posted by: Stephen | Nov 27, 2006 7:49:22 PM
Just one question. 'Mandate' ?
Ok, I could rephrase it... "Mandate" ??
Thanks for your time.
Posted by: Jack | Nov 27, 2006 8:31:43 PM
It increases the ownership society, but not at the expense of Social Security.
Uh, those have already been available for decades and are known as "IRAs."
Posted by: Constantine | Nov 27, 2006 9:06:14 PM
Possibly the administration thinks that winning a mandate makes you lose on Social Security?
Posted by: Jon O. | Nov 27, 2006 9:11:13 PM
Mallaby made the first claim, and you have at least implied that you agree with this claim.
No I haven't. I have no recollection of the event at issue. I just wanted to know what you base your objection on, if anything.
Sawicky's comments are very sketchy and completely lacking in specifics, but implicit in what he says appears to be that we'll need to raise taxes in order to repay the trust fund. That necessity implies a looming solvency problem that will require legislation to either lower the amount required to be paid back, by reducing benefits, or increasing taxes to repay the fund, or both, a compromise position Mallaby advocates.
That is not explaining a policy difference, only that Democrats have a problem with certain words and can be convinced by mere rhetoric (never mind how insulting it is).
He's referring to a policy difference, one that includes an important verbal one. Bush was pushing for the use of a portion of Social Security funds for such accounts as an alternative form of Social Security. Democrats don't object to the accounts, only the substitution of them for standard Social Security. Anything called by that name, therefore, even if funded by new money in addition to currently committed Social Security funding streams, is likely at some point to become a wedge to erode the program as it exists today. Thus the objection even to the verbal association.
If I understand Mallaby's suggested area for compromise, he wants on the table some new money that might otherwise be eyeballed by Democrats to go to the Social Security fund, to go to universal private accounts that Democrats favor anyway, but not to be called Social Security. And he wants on the table some more new funds for those accounts to come from more progressive tax benefits. Or something along those lines.
I'm not clear on how you think Mallaby misunderstands or misrepresents the accounts.
Posted by: Sanpete | Nov 27, 2006 9:43:52 PM
Sanpete claims:
"Sebastian Mallaby does not know whether the Bush administration will be willing to "make concessions" on economic policy issues like Social Security reform: the Bush administration probably does not know itself, yet."
Neither does he say they will. He says, what DeLong seems to agree with, that they may.
I don't give a tinker's damn what Mallaby and/or DeLong believe. Ezra's basic point is correct: given the adminstration's past behavior, monomania for privatization (despite it providing no solution to solvency), their general mendacity (a.k.a "lies"), and blind hatred of anything resembling a compromise, on any matter whatsoever, let me provide another edition of Simple Answers to Simple Questions:
Q: Will the Bush administration make "concessions on economic policy issues like Social Security reform"?
A: No.
This has been another edition of Simple Answers to Simple Questions.
Posted by: JT | Nov 27, 2006 10:07:18 PM
JT, Ezra's basic point, as reflected in the title and almost everything he said, was about Mallaby's relation to reality. That you don't give a damn about that doesn't change what the basic point was. I know, you don't give a damn about that either.
One thing those who like to believe their views are based on history might want to consider is the history of how people behave when they control all the levers of legislation, as opposed to how they behave when they control only one (if you count the veto). You might also want to look at Bush's record in Texas, where he was faced with Democrat control of the legislature, as he is now. But beware--doing so might endanger the simplicity of your view.
Posted by: Sanpete | Nov 27, 2006 10:29:10 PM
I read Mallaby's piece and it seems reasonable to me.
If Mallaby is making things up, then it's not reasonable. If it's reasonable, then you have reason to believe that what he says is based in at least some fact, right? Or are you in the habit of accepting arguments you think might be untrue?
If I understand Mallaby's suggested area for compromise, he wants on the table some new money that might otherwise be eyeballed by Democrats to go to the Social Security fund, to go to universal private accounts that Democrats favor anyway, but not to be called Social Security.
Um, no. There is no evidence that Democrats have been "eyeballing" any funds for Social Security, whether from repealing savings tax cuts or anything else. The Democratic Caucus is surprisingly united that the only problem with Social Security is how SS funds are used instead of general revenues for the operation of our government.
Sawicky's point is that left alone, there is no solvency problem for Social Security. Repaying the trust fund, if done not through payroll taxes but income taxes - as should be done since SS has been propping up general revenues for years - would be an easy, progressive and relatively painless operation. Expanding the program in order to pay a bunch of private industry money managers their fees will not solve anything, and that is what Sawicky, economists who agree with him, and most Democratic politicians understand.
One last time, Sanpete, and I would ask that you allow me the same consideration and allowance for the best of intentions that you do Mallaby: His column is ostensibly about Social Security and ways to fix the "solvency" problem, ways to compromise about Social Security. Mallaby then goes on to say that one of the Democrats' problems is that they don't like the words "Social Security," so lets give the accounts another name. He then touts a program that has nothing to do with Social Security, would not be funded from Social Security, and would do nothing to solve any problem, real or imagined, that Social Security is going to have, ever.
Apples, apples, apples, oranges which are really apples, and apples. Either I don't understand what oranges are, or I have a reason to try and make you think that they aren't any different from apples.
Posted by: Stephen | Nov 27, 2006 10:33:53 PM
Stephen, what Mallaby said about Bush not ruling out cap removal didn't raise any alarms for me. I just assumed he remembered something I don't, not at all unusual. If you object to his claim, please say why. If you have no particular reason, just say that. I've told you all I can about my own view of what he said about it.
You say that Democrats don't have their eye on additional funds for Social Security. Are you then saying that we have no need to increase tax revenues in order to repay the fund to keep it solvent? I don't see how that would be possible (without unacceptably vicious cuts in other programs), and Sawicky doesn't say it would be. We'll have to raise more revenues to pay back the fund, and I'm sure the Democrats in Congress all know that.
He then touts a program that has nothing to do with Social Security, would not be funded from Social Security, and would do nothing to solve any problem, real or imagined, that Social Security is going to have, ever.
As you can see from what I said before, I don't agree that's what he does. From what I can read, he wants Democrats to put on the table some of the new funds that would otherwise go to repay the trust fund, to go instead to partially fund private accounts they want anyway; he wants Republicans to agree that the new accounts won't be part of Social Security. The new private accounts would fill some of the same needs provided for by Social Security, however. The prospect of getting the private accounts, with some money that otherwise would go to the trust fund, would function as an inducement to the President to agree to a tax increase, give up the idea of directly substituting the accounts for Social Security, and agree to a more progressive tax benefit structure. This would be part of an overall deal to limit growth in Social Security benefits while raising revenue to repay the trust fund.
Posted by: Sanpete | Nov 27, 2006 11:28:21 PM
...would function as an inducement to the President to agree to a tax increase, give up the idea of directly substituting the accounts for Social Security, and agree to a more progressive tax benefit structure.
I'll have to keep this set of nonstarters in mind the next time some "centrist" accuses liberals of being politically naive.
Posted by: paperwight | Nov 28, 2006 12:34:43 AM
There is no chance of any compromise on social security with this administration. Anyone who is talking about social security now is changing the subject. The subject is minimum wage, it's medicare, it's insurance for the uninsured, it's reform of the ATM. What Mallaby is doing is making noise. Look at all the intelligent people here who are arguing their way down a rabbit hole and away from the real issues where something might actually get done.
Posted by: JR | Nov 28, 2006 12:40:57 AM
Personally, nothing would make me happier than for Bush to get in lots of fights with the Democratic Congress over domestic initiatives. Hello Democratic White House in 2009, if that happens.
I am more worried about Bush getting in a fight with the Democratic Congress about, say, attacking Iran. I'm pretty sure the Congress would cave.
Posted by: Chris | Nov 28, 2006 1:13:20 AM
Bush has state history that makes him look like a 'uniter not a divider' and he has federal history that makes him look like a stubborn partisan. So everyon rallies around and chants their particular piece of history so as to relate it to the future.
Is there really any value to sitting around blatantly guessing as to whether Bush co. is going to cooperate, blockade, or (if he goes with recent history) just go on an extended vacation on his ranch?
It seems a more useful amount of time would be spent on figuring out what 'we' want, what needs to be done to get there, and how to convince him if necessary.
Posted by: david b | Nov 28, 2006 3:15:45 AM
would function as an inducement to the President to agree to a tax increase, give up the idea of directly substituting the accounts for Social Security, and agree to a more progressive tax benefit structure.
I'm with paperwight. I'll wager whatever you want, whenever you want, that this will never happen.
Posted by: DivGuy | Nov 28, 2006 7:32:52 AM
You can place your bets with Mallaby. What he's talking about may not be likely, as much because of likely Democrat resistance as Republican, but what's at stake is important enough to make the noises from the Bush Administration worth pursuing.
Posted by: Sanpete | Nov 28, 2006 7:56:21 AM
Bush's history in Texas is not relevent. Texas has a 'weak executive' by design in its Constitution. Bush coasted along in Texas because he couldn't exert that 'executive will' that he thinks he has now in DC. And Bush didn't have Cheney and think-tanks full of economic myth-believers behind him.
The REAL GW Bush is the Bush we have in Washington. He has inherited or adopted the view of the GOP about Social Security since the 1930's: it is socialism and therefore per-se bad.
Bush's attempts to hide the issues and the objectives of the GOP regarding Social Security haven't changed. They are best expressed by Grover Norquists quest to reduce the size the (government) Social Security until it is small enough to drown in the bathtub. Everything the GOP proposes on Social Security must be viewed and understood as part of their generations-long drive to eliminate this program.
That Mallaby doesn't understand or misrepresents this history of the GOP on Social Security and Bush's history as president on the topic (Bush: the trust fund is 'just pieces of paper'). It seems like self-delusion or public dis-information to me. Probably both.
Dems would do well to not allow ANY discussion of other retirement security programs to get into the mix and focus solely on Social Security itself - making whatever changes are needed so that it comes closer to the self-funding program that it always has the case.
Things that should be considered by Dems: Removing income caps on contributions, including more participants who are younger (the rising hispanic population?), temporary support loans from the general funds to bridge the baby boomers (as Social Security has provided temporary loans from the trust fund to the general fund), gradual increases in the retirement age as folks live longer, etc.
Things that shouldn't be considered by Dems: ANY program that involves private accounts; substantial cuts in benefits for current or future eligibles; major extensions of retirement age; etc.
The GOP has not bargained in good faith on Social Security since the last major reform passed Congress. We must not accept diversionary tactics or anything that looks, acts, or walks like more BushCo/GOP bad faith undermining of Social Security. Period.
Posted by: JimPortlandOR | Nov 28, 2006 10:47:31 AM
You can place your bets with Mallaby. What he's talking about may not be likely, as much because of likely Democrat resistance as Republican, but what's at stake is important enough to make the noises from the Bush Administration worth pursuing.
The great difference seems to be that some people have realized that you cannot trust a single word coming out of the Administration--even if they mean it, it's not clear that our understanding of certain words matches up with theirs--and some people haven't. Mallaby either trusts the Administration or cannot, for whatever reason, simply say that it has very little credibility on any issue, including its own intentions.
xuse xwords ximn xthe xway xmnost xof xus
Posted by: somecallmetim | Nov 28, 2006 12:19:40 PM
So, if I'm reading Mallaby's critics right, since Bush and his advisors are Satan, we shouldn't try to actually accomplish anything for two years (since Satan will surely veto stuff like what Jim has in mind), and we can just hope for better later. That will impress voters. I suspect that legislators will try anyway, since that's what they're sent there to do. They'll just have put up with the raspberries from the peanut gallery. And if they fail, they'll try again, and keep trying until something works. The sooner the better. Every year on our current course is making things worse.
Posted by: Sanpete | Nov 28, 2006 12:36:25 PM
The comments to this entry are closed.
