February 08, 2010
Democrats - Almost Novices
Having pulled the curtain back exposing Republicans for their anti-America stance, it is the Democratic Party’s turn to have their position exposed for what it is. The Democrats in the Congress are displaying ineptitude and lack of experience in Congressional leadership, and it is costing this nation its future. The majority of voting Americans in 2008 no doubt hoped that with the election of Obama and a Democratic Congress, our nation’s problems would be addressed and solved. The disappointment is everywhere in today’s political news coverage.
By late Summer of last year, two facts were evident to Democrats in Congress. First, that they didn't have 60 votes in the Senate to stop filibusters, (only 58 seats with two Independents with an independent agenda). It takes 60 votes to stop a filibuster in the Senate, (an action to prevent legislation from coming to a vote). And second, it was evident that Republicans were going to block Democratic legislation which would bolster public confidence in electing Democrats. In other words, any legislation that was going to be favored by the majority of the public as solving problems, was going to be stopped by each and every Republican Congress person.
So, why did Democrats fail to revise the rules of the Senate, such that the vote to stop a filibuster (cloture vote), would only require 55 or 51 votes? Democratic leaders may now respond by saying that would have been too tough to do politically and open the door for public criticism of changing the rules in their favor. Failure to make the attempt however, has now cost the Democrats their momentum, and the consensus to get any thing done for the American people.
This situation of having the wind pulled entirely out of Democrat's sails, is a result of incompetent leadership by House majority leader Nancy Pelosi, and Senate majority leader Harry Reid. They might respond today saying they sought bi-partisan solutions which would not require changing the filibuster rule. But, given the evidence of Congressional Republican's intent to blockade all legislation that didn't reflect how they would craft it if they were the majority, it would appear such a reply by Pelosi and Reid would be little more than damage control.
With the election of Sen. Scott Brown (R) filling Sen. Ted Kennedy's seat, the potential of changing the Senate rule is no longer a realistic option, since, even if Democrats got the votes of all Democrats and Independents, Sanders and Lieberman, they would be one vote short with Republicans 41 voting block in the Senate. So, what Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, and the entire Democratic Party are saddled with now, is a 'Do Nothing' Congress. And it is a label that will erode their election results in November, fomenting even more rapid growth in the anti-incumbent sentiment amongst voters.
Incompetence and overreach were also evident in the enormously costly health care reform bill. Democrats wanted, no doubt, to put politics aside, and move health care reform through on a bi-partisan basis, which is why they accommodated Republican amendments and ideas in Committee's helping to craft the legislation. It was however, politically naive of the Democratic leadership to believe Republicans, any of them, would allow Democrats to take ownership of the most comprehensive health care bill to be proposed since Medicare in the 1960's.
They failed also to recognize the devastating confluence of public ignorance about our enormously complex and decentralized health care system, and the advantage the insurance industry would take of that public ignorance in fighting any such health care reform. This kind of political inexperience and incompetence by Democratic leadership was inexcusable. The way forward for Democrats was to put together a vastly smaller reform addressing only insurance industry abuses which the public could easily grasp and support, and Republicans would have had to be embarrassed to oppose. Pass it, gain the momentum and public trust, and then a year later, put together another reform package that went further providing insurance of all Americans currently uninsured, or the measures to drive down costs through competition.
This tactic and strategy would have brought out the big guns of the insurance industry and many Republicans in opposition over an initial reform that the public would have demanded as common sense. And thus, the ammunition of the industry and Republicans would have been spent, and their motives highlighted for all to see before the next reform came around, defusing opposition to it in the public's mind. Democrats needed a Lyndon Johnson in the Congress, savvy, politically shrewd, and experienced. Instead, they got Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, with years of experience in the Congress but, none as majority leaders and shepherds of tough complex legislative initiatives.
What the American public is left with now is gird lock in Congress, enormous and growing frustration and distrust in politicians in both parties, and the rise of the Tea Party garnering a great deal of media play for their very small numbers and conservative agenda, and increasing those numbers in support of targeting key 2010 election races. The end result is a divided nation along conservative and liberal lines with many factions in each camp, an even more divided Congress, and a President elected to change things for the better who hasn't the Congress to get that change underway.
The one ray of hope in this scenario is the rise of the anti-incumbent voters, both liberal and conservative, registering their dismay, frustration, and disappointment in the only way that will have an impact on those in Congress. They are voting for a challenger instead of the incumbent representative or party. The power of the vote, as our Founding Fathers understood, was to remove people from power as much as to elect them. The founders had no means to remove King George from the throne of England and rule over the colonies, except by Revolution and war. The vote was intended to provide a means for removing abusers of power from office, without having to suffer the inhumanity of war, by electing challengers for those offices, instead.
Americans in growing numbers are rediscovering this all important power and design of their vote. No longer suffering the illusion that blaming other representatives will change anything, they are accepting the reality that the only representative they can target for the lack of change they seek in government, is their own representative. The incumbent's bucket argument that it is the fault of other Congress persons that nothing is getting done for the people has a hole in it, and it has been getting bigger with each passing election since 2006. More and more voters are waking to the fact that if Congress is not working for them and the nation, their own representative has, at the very least, been ineffective in persuading the others, and therefore, their own representative is of no use to them.
The changes in our political system needed to correct our future condition must come about quickly, however. The CBO (Congressional Budget Office) according to a number of reports last year, estimated that Soc. Security revenues may exceed outlays in 2010. I just checked the CBO's estimates for 2010 updated last month, and their revised estimate indicates Soc. Sec. will not run a deficit this year. However, even as the economy grows and revenues increase, outlays for entitlements will increase faster than revenues, if Congress does not act. That fact is inescapable. The situation with Medicare and Medicaid is far more dire, threatening dozens of trillions of dollars in deficits added to the national debt in decades to come if reforms are not undertaken quickly. Of course, our government will bankrupt long before those deficits in Medicare and Medicaid are realized. And a bankrupt American government will mean poverty and suffering on a scale today, enormously more encompassing than that of the The Great Depression of the 1930's.
The Democratic and Republican Party elected officials continue to demonstrate incompetence in managing our nation's challenges. It is not that they are incapable of the job at hand. It is the simple matter that their partisan rivalries for our votes hold a higher priority for them, than taking care of the nation's business. It is therefore, up to the voters to deny them office, every election, until they demonstrate that they have altered their priorities and put the American people and their future ahead of politics and elections, at least until our nation's future is rescued. And they must internally be forced to elect party leaders who recognize the writing on the wall. It is up to the voters. The politicians will only serve themselves unless we force them to serve our nation instead. And we do that by demonstrating that they wont' get reelected if they DON'T put our nation's challenges first and foremost, and solve them.
David
Democrats have controlled congress for more than three years. Many of them have been in Congress for years or decades. If they are novices, they will never learn to do any better.
Inexperience and ignorance can be cured. But if after decades of experience in congress and more than three years in the leadership they still have not learned, maybe there they are afflicted by something else that is not curable.
So you are right. Let’s vote the bums out. I think it would be great to be rid of Reid and Pelosi.
re Social Security - you are right again. Bush tried to address that in 2005. Democrats blocked all his reforms w/o proposing anything else except the status quo. Republicans didn’t have the votes to override them. The American people opposed the changes. Hey, doesn’t that sound like something else that happened maybe last year?
Posted by: Christine at February 8, 2010 08:08 PMYeah, both parties are corrupt and greedy. It’s unfair to bash one side over the other, because each has it’s pro’s and con’s.
Posted by: Caleb Groves at February 8, 2010 08:19 PMChristine said: “Democrats have controlled congress for more than three years. Many of them have been in Congress for years or decades. If they are novices, they will never learn to do any better.”
No. Majority leaders and minority leaders who have become notable for their accomplishments have histories as students in the Congress before becoming leader, and remain students afterward, adding to their acumen. Pelosi and Reid have demonstrated that their learning days were not as well developed and packed as necessary to become wise and accomplished leaders.
It was leadership that I described as novices, the majority leaders and the Committee heads in many cases, who let majority status lull them into complacency about the ease with which solutions would follow. I can’t speak to the development of leadership skills required for Congress where other Democrats, or Republicans are concerned, who are not in leadership roles at this time. And neither can you, outside the realm of speculation.
When you say: “Inexperience and ignorance can be cured. But if after decades of experience in congress and more than three years in the leadership they still have not learned, maybe there they are afflicted by something else that is not curable.” I assume you are speaking of Reid and Pelosi and their Whips. And if so, I have to agree with you, entirely.
Some people are blinded by power and therefore destined to wield it poorly. Some are overwhelmed by power, evidencing the Peter Principle. Still others simply lack the strategic and tactical background and experience for the job. And still others, simply fail to do the needed homework to understand the personalities of their herd of cats, and therefore, are unable to corral and herd them. I don’t know Reid and Pelosi or their backgrounds well enough to speculate why they have failed strategically and tactically, but, the evidence is now clear, that they have, whatever the reasons.
As you say, they have the majority, and have made little good use of it for the American people expecting so much of them in this last year. Whether Pelosi or Reid, in the time remaining for them, have now learned to overcome their weaknesses as leaders, remains to be seen. Sometimes great students are late to begin their earnest studies, but manage to pull out of themselves graduation nonetheless.
Bush did indeed try to float privatizing Soc. Sec. to include stock market investments of individual accounts. Thankfully, it didn’t float, or folks having bought into it, would have lost half or more of their investments as a result of this Great Recession and stock market retrenchment.
Folks don’t want their retirement savings to be gambled, especially by persons greedy to profit from the handling of the consumers money. After all, we have seen what such folks can do with other’s money when given free rein to take risks for personal profit. That is not how Americans want to gamble their retirement savings.
But, you are right, Democrats have yet to attempt reform of the Soc. Sec. system; by far the easier problem to fix compared to health care, Medicare, and Medicaid. Perhaps a result of the elongated wasted effort and time spent on health care reform.
Posted by: David R. Remer at February 8, 2010 10:20 PMDavid
Like many people, I have a retirement plan that allows tax defered investments. Indeed, I lost a bundle from the peak to the trough. But I didn’t buy most of those stocks at the peak. I bought some every two weeks for twenty years. And even at the very lowest point, my stock-based portfolio was worth more than three times as much as a portfolio that included only government securities. This is how they system works. Those who count their money at the top of cry about the bottom are called … poor.
One of my colleagues converted his whole portfolio into government securities in late 2008. Very stupid. A stock portfolio went up by around 1/3. His went up hardly at all.
Posted by: Christine at February 8, 2010 11:40 PMDavid,
I agree that the Leader of the House and Senate is to blame for a lot of the bad blood this past summer. For why Healthcare can be resolved simply by every American buying a Secured Bond and having someone else manage their Personal Medical Savins Plan. I do believe the Leaders of Labor forgot to include Americas’ First Responders into the Conversation.
And why that may have been out of Ignorance or Tactic based on the Loyal Opposition in Washongton, I do believe the reason most Americans still reject the healthcare plan is it does not help the patient meet their basic problem. For who are you going to call when you have a question about your Health, MOM?
No, I do believe President Obama did make a mistake in letting Congress change his Healthcare Reform to a Healthcare Insurance Reform Bill. And way nothing can be done about water under the bridge, I do believe that the summer was not a total waste of time.
For why it certainly brought out the old arguments of the Status Quo some 30 years ago, I also believe it got many on the Lrft and Right to come together and look at the different ways Americas’ Government and Society can address the raising healthcare and need for more senior aide.
Because why it will take stricking a balance between the Investment of Government and Society to improve the manner in which Americans recieve and pay the Institutions for their services. I do believe Labor and Management will never be happy with their fair share of the pot. However, can Congress and “We the People” help ‘We the Consumers” afford the Healthcare of the Future?
Posted by: Henry Schlatman at February 9, 2010 02:00 AMChristine, so your argument is that privatization of Soc. Sec. will benefit those whose education teaches them to invest wisely over time, and everyone else is just stupid and should die in poverty for their ignorance.
The American people will not stand by and watch their parents and grandparents suffer poverty resulting from either their lack of investment acumen or just bad timing events prior to their retirement. They will demand the government rescue their parents and grandparents from poverty or near poverty while the brokers and investors managing their savings make off with enormous profits from their parents investments before the losses occurred.
I saw this Stock market decline coming and wrote here at WB advising folks to begin to draw down from equities back in 2006 and 07. I know of no one who did. They all lost and have not recovered significant portions of their losses. Most Americans were not privy to the same information and education that permitted me to shield our retirement savings until the big crash began to recover.
But, you would turn Americans all into gamblers leaving their retirement fates to the same forces that just lost trillions of dollars in markets in the last 16 months, while those responsible for it continue to rake in multi-millon dollar compensation packages for it? I am sorry, but, that is so very Republican.
If Republicans were capable of putting together a plan with integrity, I might be persuaded. But, that is obviously out of their reach. I could propose that Republicans first make the investment in education to insure new workers in the labor force have the training necessary to manage their private savings investments for retirement, and then move to privatize Soc. Sec.
But, that would not get far with Republicans, who essentially believe in the tiered income caste system, and that the majority of people in America should be poor or lower middle class in their pyramid income and wealth scheme. I can’t think of sounder plan to insure that pyramid than to permit the banking sector to profit from the privatizing of social security and retirement savings of the middle and lower classes.
If Republicans did care at all about people instead of just how to get a piece of their savings, they might be inclined to propose non-profit private sector management of Social Security retirement funds. But, that would never enter a Republican’s mind. Where is the profit in that?
Posted by: David R. Remer at February 9, 2010 02:28 AMHenry, there are many potential solutions that would work. Getting a consensus to pass any of them in total one bill reform is just not in the political cards.
Favorable tax treatment of non-profit health care clinics and outpatient centers along with non-profit health care insurance associations would resolve much of the challenge we face in the decades to come. But, Republicans and a some conservative Democrats simply don’t believe in government inducing non-profit health care over for-profit health care, and neither do their contributors, the health care for profit insurance companies and LLC’s.
Posted by: David R. Remer at February 9, 2010 02:34 AMDR
The Dem leadership and BHO made the big mistake of believing they could work with what passes for “conservatives” these days. They should have been playing hardball from the start. Its time for BHO to dump his Chicago staff and hire a war time consigleri.
I guess you are trying to be fair ,knocking the Dems after knocking the Reps. It is not the Dems holding up HC reform,cap and trade,bank regulation.
Christine
Wow! Its hard to believe you would still be rooting for Bushcos bizarre plan to hasten the failure of SS after what has happened to private pension plans. Chances are very good that those young people that invested privately would have lost nearly everything AND SS would be having to cash in the bonds already. A disaster,of course that was his plan.. I suppose now your going to start telling us that we need to de-regulate the financial industry even more or that the only way to help the economy out is more tax cuts for rich people.
Bush did indeed try to float privatizing Soc. Sec. to include stock market investments of individual accounts. Thankfully, it didn’t float, or folks having bought into it, would have lost half or more of their investments as a result of this Great Recession and stock market retrenchment.
The idea floated was to allow younger citizens to direct a small percentage of their SS funds into a limited number of safer stocks. It would not have allowed the free for all investing into stocks that you misrepresent…
In fact, it does sound quite similar. A post by qando in 2005 look as if it could have been written by Stephen if you change the subject matter…
The public overwhelmingly disapproves of 1) the way Bush is handling Social Security (56% - 35%), and 2) “Bush’s proposals on Social Security” (55% - 37%).But the public also overwhelmingly supports — by a margin of 56% - 41% — “a plan in which people who chose to could invest some of their Social Security contributions in the stock market”.
The Democrats know very well what Milton Friedman described in Tyranny of the Status Quo:A new administration has some six to nine months in which to achieve major changes; if it does not seize the opportunity to act decisively during that period, it will not have another such opportunity. Further changes come slowly or not at all, and counterattacks develop against the initial changes. The temporarily routed political forces regroup, and then tend to mobilize everyone who was adversely affected by the changes, while the proponents of the changes tend to relax after their initial victories.The Democrats have to play a Prevent Defense for just a little while…and they’re doing it rather well.
In fact, Bush’s plan was different than you describe and can be found at web.archive.org/web/20050306184951/http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/social-security/200501/socialsecurity.pdf
Social Security will not be changed for those 55 or older (born before 1950).
Under the President’s plan, personal retirement accounts would strt gradually. Yearly contribution limits would be raised over time, EVENTUALLY permitting all workers to set aside *4* percentage points of their payroll taxes in their accounts. Annual contributions to personal retirement accounts initially would be capped at 1,000 per year in 2009.
Personal retirement account options and management would be similar to that of the Federal employee retirement program, known as the Thrift Savings Plan (TSP).
Personal retirement accounts would be invested in a mix of conservative bonds and stock funds. Guidelines and restrictions would be put in place to provide sound investment choices and prevent individuals from spending the money in these accounts on the lottery or at the race track. Workers would be permitted to allocate their personal retirement account contributions among a small number of very broadly diversified index funds patterned after the current TSP funds.
Personal retirement accounts would be protected from sudden market swings on the eve of retirement To protect near-retirees from sudden market swings on the eve of retirement, personal retirement accounts would be automatically invested in the “life cycle portfolio” when a worker reaches age 47, unless the workers and his or her spouse specfically opted out by signeing a waiver form stating that they are aware of the risks involved.
But, facts didn’t matter back then to those who opposed Bush’s plans by people like yourself who, to this day, still misrepresent what was proposed in order to push an agenda. Stephen fought hard against it as well, not just saying no and having no other alternative for reform but by saying ‘there is no issue, SS is fine!’
It wasn’t then, it isn’t now. The Democrats just wanted it to be during THEIR administration that the solution got resolved.
Sounds familiar to anyone at all?
Posted by: Rhinehold at February 9, 2010 09:16 AMIf Republicans did care at all about people instead of just how to get a piece of their savings, they might be inclined to propose non-profit private sector management of Social Security retirement funds. But, that would never enter a Republican’s mind. Where is the profit in that?
Curious question, did you ever actually read the proposed plan?
Posted by: Rhinehold at February 9, 2010 09:22 AMRhinehold accurately wrote: “Social Security will not be changed for those 55 or older (born before 1950).”
I am now 60. I was born in 1950. It would have changed my SS. That is why I opposed it. In fact, so many opposed it, it never even got drafted into a bill. Republicans in the Congress knew this was DOA from the White House.
Protecting accounts on the eve of retirement simply didn’t cut it, not if large losses in initial savings plus earnings were incurred while the brokers cut out their share of our savings as their profits.
Americans are not stupid. Ignorant or uneducated about specializations of knowledge, but, it doesn’t require specialized knowledge to realize Bush’s plan would put retirement savings at risk whereas the SS we have now is guaranteed by the government. That only requires common sense, and a majority of the American people who vote do have common sense. Las Vegas style retirement investments or, Guaranteed benefits by the U.S. Gov’t. It really is a no brainer. Even moreso, now with the Great Recession. Best thing that could have happened to bury Bush’s privatization plan for S.S.
Posted by: David R. Remer at February 9, 2010 10:02 AMAnd you once again show your lack of understanding about what was being offered.
Your plan would not have changed! (god, I know I have heard that before somewhere). You would have had the OPPORTUNITY to put a small (1,000 per year max, 4% max) of your payroll into small group of government managed funds similar to the funds that the federal employees had access to. (once again, eerily familiar)
If *YOU* didn’t want your SS funds to be in ‘the stock market’, you didn’t have to. It was only for those who chose to do so, and in a very very limited fashion, with strict government controls.
But of course, you didn’t want others to have a choice that you didn’t want to make for yourself so you opposed it. Only, most Americans said that they wanted just such a plan, that they wanted SS reformed and that they wanted Americans to have the opportunity to direct some small amount of their SS taxes into potentially greater increases than 1% per year. They just didn’t want Bush’s plan, the one that opponents of lied about and misrepresented repeatedly, just as you continue to do now.
Again, history has a funny way of repeating itself.
Posted by: Rhinehold at February 9, 2010 10:21 AMBTW, they did it with a minority to the majority and did not have an alternative plan to offer in its place.
Same people saying the same thing now about their opponents? Yup.
Posted by: Rhinehold at February 9, 2010 10:25 AMRhinehold asked: “Curious question, did you ever actually read the proposed plan?”
Did you? There were actually 3 plans coming out of the President’s Commission. The one the WH shot for was developed by a CATO Institute director, Butler, and the Heritage Foundation, a radical right wing supply side economy think tank and lobbyist organization, which oppose nearly all government programs, and published back in 1983. No doubt why you were for it, Rhinehold.
The most popular alternative plan of the 3 was to
reduce benefits for everyone under 55 today by changing the way in which they are adjusted for inflation - from wage indexing to price indexing. Commission members admit THIS CHANGE ALONE WOULD SOLVE SOCIAL SECURITY’S LONG-RUN FINANCING PROBLEM AND EVEN PRODUCE A SURPLUS.But, even this plan had risks for low income wage earners which the current plan does not pose.
Social Security needs reforming, but there are far less risky alternatives with improved chances of acceptance by the public at large. One such alternative is to convert S.S. into a true Insurance safety net program in which benefits are only paid out IF a person’s income in retirement from all sources will be less than 200% of the poverty line. SS would make up the difference between other income and 200% of the poverty line. It is the security of knowing one will not fall into poverty that is the feature a majority of Americans cling to in the current plan.
Hence, this alternative plan secures that aspect of the current S.S. system while driving down the outlays over the next 75 years, and would possibly not even require increases in premiums, (only COLA adjustments) in order to be deficit neutral. (And there are no middlemen carving out profits from the system, surely to be opposed by Republicans and Libertarians on greedy principle.)
Posted by: David R. Remer at February 9, 2010 10:33 AMRhinehold, the earnings rate on non-equity investments, would not have sufficiently insured retirement fund growth to offset loss of income upon retirement by low wage earners. It was a boondoggle for those who will need S.S. the most to stave off poverty.
Posted by: David R. Remer at February 9, 2010 10:37 AMbills said: “I guess you are trying to be fair ,knocking the Dems after knocking the Reps.”
No. Democrats blew it on the HC reform, fashioning a gigantic reform the public could not understand nor grasp as in their own best interests, as opposed to an incremental approach beginning with health insurance industry reforms which the public would have readily got behind.
bills said: “It is not the Dems holding up HC reform,cap and trade,bank regulation.”
Yes, it is, in attempting and wasting so much time and political capital trying to pass an omnibus HC reform bill the public could not understand and support with confidence. Pelosi and Reid completely failed to meet the needs of the public to have their confidence and trust restored before signing off on a Democratic HC reform bill that could potentially alter the insurance coverage they now have, which a majority are very glad to have, (employer based).
Posted by: David R. Remer at February 9, 2010 10:43 AMDavid,
You are right, other plans were floated by other parties brought to the table. I provided the one introduced by the President which doesn’t include any of your concerns…
Of course, once again, 3 separate plans, used to confuse and create division between people for political gains. Again, sounding familiar.
BTW, you are making an assumption that I supported the plans by Bush and his administration. I am not sure why you feel inclined to make such an assumption, I certainly did not support the minimalistic approach to such a huge boondoggle that currently exists.
And I also don’t appreciate the ‘greedy’ label. There is nothing greedy about protecting an individual’s rights to do with their time (and money gained from that time) as they choose to. What is greedy is thinking that you have a right to spend other’s money as you see fit. To spend their LIFE away in making sure that they will have to work 6 months out of the year just to break even for the debts and promises of others…
I guess we just choose to see things differently.
Posted by: Rhinehold at February 9, 2010 11:12 AMBTW, none of the 3 plans required you to put ANY money into the ‘stock market’ and none of the 3 plans you mention allowed anyone to put all of their SS in ‘the market’. Both of those assertions are gross lies about what was being proposed.
Further, it was intended to be a government managed, non-profit, system, just as you say you wanted. But you didn’t like it because Bush proposed it, clear and simple.
Personal retirement accounts would not be eaten up by hidden Wall Street fees. Personal retirement accounts would be low-cost. The SSA actuaries project that the ongoing administrative costs for a TSP-style personal account structure would be roughly 30 basis points or 0.3 percentage points, compared to an average of 125 basis points for investments in stock mutual funds and 88 basis points in bond mutual funds in 2003.The low costs are made possible by the economies of scale and a centralized administrative structure, as well as limiting investment options to a small number of prudent, broadly diversified funds.
Most of these administrative costs are for recordkeeping which would be done by the government, not investment management done by Wall Street.
I don’t know, it sure sounds to me like the plan you are saying you wanted to see them offer, I’m not sure why you didn’t back this specific plan that I linked to when it was made available to the public in 2005…
What in *this plan* did you have a problem with again specifically?
Posted by: Rhinehold at February 9, 2010 11:20 AMRhinehold said: “There is nothing greedy about protecting an individual’s rights to do with their time (and money gained from that time) as they choose to.”
Yes, there is, when that greed drives policy that potentially sends millions into poverty for one’s own profits. The investment brokers and banks lobbied for Bush’s SS reform precisely because of greed. The potential of skimming off the top of the large principle investments of Social Security premiums is precisely what drove their lobbying efforts without care one as to what happens to those investors when their retirement years were realized.
We all know what drives capitalism, greed for increased wealth, pure and simple. To acquire capital investment from the public, a corporation has offer incentive, and that incentive is higher returns on investing with them, which of course, cannot be guaranteed, but if the potential reward is high enough, people will take unbelievable risks with their money for a chance at that reward. That is the fundamental psychology behind the success of the State lotteries with millions to one odds, and people spending their last paycheck dollar on lottery tickets instead of saving it to tie them over in lean times.
Reasonable folks not addicted to gambling want their retirement savings to do two things: become sufficient to provide for them in their retirement years and be guaranteed to be there when they need it. Any Soc. Sec. reform must meet those two objectives for the majority of the public to embrace it.
That is why the insurance concept of Soc. Sec. reform is one that has so much promise. Folks are comfortable with the concept of insurance, and it meets the requirements above. Of course, it is no panacea and opponents will attempt to convince the public it is not in their best interest with arguments like: gambling on the stock market could yield you much greater sums to retire upon. (of course the reverse is also true, but, the sellers won’t tell consumers that as it would not serve their greedy interests).
But, Americans, gamblers that they are, will not embrace gambling with their retirement savings as a majority, especially if it involves a cut to middlemen along the the road of increased risk.
Rhinehold said: “What is greedy is thinking that you have a right to spend other’s money as you see fit.”
Bullcrap. Greed is profiting from the losses of others. That is an entirely different concept from a bargain built on mutual enlightened self-interest as defined by Adam Smit, from a fair exchange of goods and services in which both parties walk away satisfied with the deal.
And get over it, Rhinehold. We are a Constitutionally based government and taxing people to pay for government services is both Constitutional and ethically arrived at as a bargain between the majority of citizens and their democratically elected government. At anytime that a majority of citizens deem taxation to not be in their interests, they have but to vote for champions among them promising to abolish government and taxes. Many individuals and minority groups have tried to this. They tried and failed, miserably.
It is not theft for a democratic people to govern and provide for themselves by way of a government they agree to pay for as a democratic majority. Your attempts to paint government and taxation as theft is a lie, anarchist if carried to its logical conclusions, and an extreme minority viewpoint which will always remain so. Your attempt to call taxation for government services theft, is anti-democracy, anti-government, and compassionless inasmuch as it would, as policy, leave the unfortunate in our society to suffer their misfortunes, not of their own making.
Bush’s privatizing of Soc. Sec. unnecessarily risks the savings of the poor and middle classes for the sake of profits by the investing profiteers. Non-profit retirement savings organizations will accrue far greater trust and confidence by the public if investing of retirement funds is the approach to be sold.
Of course, even non-profit investment organizations can guarantee savings will be there upon retirement if equities and other risky investment instruments are used to attempt to grow the principle of the savings. Which is why the safety net insurance concept of Soc. Sec. reform best meets the objective of preventing poverty for the labor force upon retirement at the least cost to taxpayers throughout the baby boom demographic bubble (2075).
Posted by: David R. Remer at February 9, 2010 11:55 AMRhinehold, our discussion has left the topic of this article. Let’s take it to email for further discussion. Thanks.
Posted by: David R. Remer at February 9, 2010 12:06 PMLet’s take it to email for further discussion.
You mean, “let me make wild accusations, reclaim things that have already been shown to be false, jump to all kinds of conclusions and leaps of logic of dizzying hights, all in a public venue, but don’t respond to me in public…”?
Nah, I’m good with leaving it as it is.
Posted by: Rhinehold at February 9, 2010 01:16 PMLet’s take it to email for further discussion.You mean, “let me make wild accusations, reclaim things that have already been shown to be false, jump to all kinds of conclusions and leaps of logic of dizzying hights, all in a public venue, but don’t respond to me in public…”?
Nah, I’m good with leaving it as it is.
Posted by: Rhinehold at February 9, 2010 01:16 PM
Both of you are editors. Why not create a new article to talk about SS reform? That way this article can stay true to its original topic and we can also have a public discussion of about SS.
Posted by: Warped Reality at February 9, 2010 02:18 PMDavid, good article. It seems to me the dems in Congress have just not been able to grow the backbone needed to govern this motley crew of representatives we have today. Other than Grayson and on occasion Frank I haven’t seen one of them show the people of this country that they are actually leaders that deserve our respect. They have failed to show any passion when it comes to getting legislation passed, whether intentionally or not who knows, they have not been able to rally their own troops to support their ideas so why would they expect the rest of us to follow?
It’s tough when the problem you are fighting pays for your reelection costs.
Posted by: j2t2 at February 9, 2010 02:23 PMWarped Reality, regrettably, Rhinehold’s privileges were suspended for willful non-compliance with WB’s rules, even after being politely asked to comply with them.
Posted by: David R. Remer at February 9, 2010 03:01 PMj2t2, I wonder how much Obama’s insistence upon bi-partisanship played into Democrat’s diminished capacity to achieve consensus amongst themselves toward bills that could that their caucuses could back with strength? I think Pelosi and Reid failed to coordinate and work with each other to coordinate key points of legislation that could be passed in both houses, BEFORE it became public and subject to the misinformation campaigns and special interest distortions. They needed to have their own ducks in a row, if they were to operate from a position of strength as a majority in Congress. For me, it is obvious from the examples of Nebraska’s Nelson and La.’s Landrieu that they failed in this regard.
Posted by: David R. Remer at February 9, 2010 03:07 PMThe baby boomers are now the cogs in the machine that some of them raged against when they were young with nothing to lose.
Conservatives control the Congress. Ben Nelson will fillibuster Obama’s labor nominee. Even the center right agenda of the Democrats is unacceptable to the conservatives that control the Congress.
Novice is not a word I would ascribe to the Democratic politicians. Naive is closer but, sucker as in suckered by wealth is spot on. Liberals abandoned their progressive agenda to support the conservatives quest to create a world corpocracy devoted to chasing cheap labor and non regulation wherever it can be found. They politically correctly call it Globalization of Markets.
It won’t take fifty years for wage demands and regulation to convince the corporations that it is time to close down manufacturing and move to greener pastures leaving the Chinese with a low wage service economy and the promise of a renaissance in education and high tech jobs.
Now the Democrats are the majority and some of them are saying it is our turn now. We went a little to far so we need to tweek the statis quo. The conservatives (wealth) who are in control of Congress are basically saying S$f$$$ you.
Posted by: jlw at February 9, 2010 04:33 PM
David,
I do believe the Democratic Leadership wanted to do what the Republican Leadership did under Bush and ram rod the healthcare bill through; however, I am surprised at the Radio and TV Pundits sis not catch on to the fact that President Obama remained silent most of the summer on the subject. Insread, when asked did he not refer the questions back to Congress?
Yes, America needs Healthcare Reform just as we need Social Security Reform; nevertheless, I do believe “We the People” need to ask ourselve what will the next 100 years lok like and how do we use these two tools of Government and Society to claim those Rights?
Posted by: Henry Schlatman at February 9, 2010 07:20 PMWell the goal of bipartisanship is a decent goal but it takes two to bi and the repub leadership was against it from the start. Reid, Pelosi and others could have made it clear to Obama that it wasn’t gonna happen in this session of Congress. But hindsight is 20/20 and with the lack of support on the right for bipartisanship it is time to realize the problem the dems will have should they continue to work in a bipartisan manner with those that won’t. So I don’t know if I would place the blame on Obama for asking Congress to do the will of the people.
It seems to me the attempts to have bipartisan bills seem to be taken as a sign of weakness by the American public. Although most Americans claim to want our representatives to work together as many of the last 110 Congress’s have done, we the people rewarded those causing the gridlock with election wins recently.
I would say it is time for the dems to take the gloves off perhaps by first forcing Ben Nelson to switch parties. With dems like Nelson who needs repubs?
Posted by: j2t2 at February 9, 2010 07:40 PMj2t2 said: “I would say it is time for the dems to take the gloves off perhaps by first forcing Ben Nelson to switch parties.”
Are you really suggesting the Democratic Party install a lithmus test for being a Democrat, the way Palin and Tea Partyers and other prominent Congressional Democrats are calling for, for their party?
I would adamantly advise against it. The numbers will always favor the party of inclusion in the long run. The Democratic Party needs its fiscal conservatives and social conservatives to keep the historical record of a dominant Democratic Congress going, if I were in the Democratic Leadership.
As an independent voter advocating anti-incumbent strategy, Democrats forcing Ben Nelson out would only serve my anti-incumbent advocacy. It would still be a foolish move on Democrats part, I believe, even if it does serve my agenda.
Posted by: David R. Remer at February 9, 2010 10:16 PMHenry, here’ my take. The American people are far less the problem as individuals as are the political parties to which they affiliate themselves with, whose only priority is power and insuring it by any and all means they can get away with. Power, however, blinds people to the limits of what they can get away with, and hence, power grabbers always will overstep the limits, eventually, and get trounced by those who were abused by that overstepping.
Posted by: David R. Remer at February 9, 2010 10:20 PMDavid,
Throwing up my hands I walk away asking why “I” will never understand “We”
The answer is because Adam Smith is not required reading for American education. Adam Smith’s definition of “enlightened self-interest” as society’s decision making standard, beneficial to the “I” and “We”, as set out in The Theory of Moral Sentiment, is lost upon Americans. Those who know Adam Smith’s name know of his book Wealth of Nations, which built upon the definition of social and individual decision making based on ‘enlightened self-interest’ in defining the ‘invisible hand’ that would self-correct market’s tendencies toward bubbles and severe corrections resulting in depressions or economic collapse.
Today, most folks have never read Adam Smith, and those who have read and write about Wealth of Nations have not read Theory of Moral Sentiment with comprehension if at all. Ergo, Wealth of Nation’s is completely misunderstood as free enterprise capitalism will auto correct based on human behavior and natural tendency.
The problem is, “enlightened self-interest” is not a natural tendency. It must be taught. It requires a broad general education, motivation toward intelligence, understanding relationships, and actively seeking to understand those relationships as part of the decision making process.
Ergo, capitalist markets will not self-correct without enormous damage because the invisible hand is NOT guided by “enlightened self-interest”, which is no longer a part of American education.
Or, to put it succinctly, and I quote: ” ‘I’ will never understand ‘We’ “
Posted by: David R. Remer at February 10, 2010 01:59 AMDavid,
It is My Hope that My Brothers and Sisters of the 70’s will with the help of the Children learn to govern as “We” and Live as “I”
DR
You do realize that if even 3-4 Rep senators had decided to do the right thing Ried would not have been forced to surrender the public option or cut so many stinky deals,etc.
Henry
SS does not need reform inparticular. The program is solvent. For thirty years working people have been paying extra in to it to cover the retirement of us baby boomers. On paper benefits can be paid at 100% until 2043. At that point many of us will not be collecting as we will be dead. The looming problem is the the US will have to start paying off its bond obligations to the SS fund. The US has never defaulted on its bonds before and we should not expect them to start.The problem is not with SS,its with the federal budget.That is what needs reform.
bills said: “You do realize that if even 3-4 Rep senators had decided to do the right thing Ried would not have been forced to surrender the public option or cut so many stinky deals,etc.”
The same could be said of a few Democratic Senators and one Independent whose last name begins with Lieberman. :-) Unless cloture rules are changed, one Republican at least will now be needed to pass anything.
The cloture vote rules have to change.
Posted by: David R. Remer at February 10, 2010 10:10 AM“Are you really suggesting the Democratic Party install a lithmus test for being a Democrat, the way Palin and Tea Partyers and other prominent Congressional Democrats are calling for, for their party?”
Not a litmus test David but a questioning of his intentions. He has consistently favored the repub position, which is his right to do so, but when he allows the repubs consistent victories as he did with the NLRB nomination vote recently one has to wonder whose side he is on. For him to need a bribe from his own party each and every time a vote is needed renders him useless to the dem team IMHO. With the all out warfare in Congress, perpetrated by the repubs, it is time for dems to stick together for the benefit of the team instead of selling them out. As Ben Franklin said “We must, indeed, all hang together or, most assuredly, we shall all hang separately.”
Were I the coach of a team and Ben was on my team yet helped the other side as much as he does I would just sit him on their bench and be done with it. A proactive approach, I believe, because I doubt it will be to long before he switches sides anyway.
Posted by: j2t2 at February 10, 2010 10:17 AMj2t2,
You make some very good arguments. But, the fact remains, it is NOT up to the Democratic Party or Dem. Congressional Caucus to override the voter’s decision, which elected him as a Democrat. That is an entire contradiction to the concept of democratic elections. And therefore as repugnant as a lithmus test for Party candidacy by the national Party. It attempts to trump the right of local district voters to choose as they wish for their representation in government.
Correction: In my previous comment to which you replied, I said: “…the way Palin and Tea Partyers and other prominent Congressional Democrats are calling for, for their party?”
It should have read: Congressional Republicans, not Democrats. Oops!@
Posted by: David R. Remer at February 10, 2010 11:46 AMDavid, The obstructionist tactics used by the repubs and conservative dems in Congress are also a contradiction to a representative democracy in action. Yet the repubs continue to garner support from independents with these tactics. All I am saying is were I a dem I would want my party to fight fire with fire in lieu of going down in flames by continuing to try to work with the other side. By continuing to take the high road they have damaged themselves. They have only themselves to blame for appearing to be weak, unable to lead the country and unable to pass legislation. Nelson is one reason for this problem that the dems can deal with.
Posted by: j2t2 at February 10, 2010 12:59 PMj2t2, your argument is an ends justifies the means argument.
To obtain legislative ends, your propose the Dem. Party undo the voter’s choice. That is neither Constitutional given universal suffrage amendments popularly electing Senators, nor in keeping with the concept of democracy.
Dictators get rid of people in government who disagree with them. That is not where any of our political parties should go.
The DNC has the legal and constitutional power to withhold DNC funding from Ben Nelson’s next reelection campaign, and even put forth a Primary challenger from his State. But, to remove him from power would be inappropriate, absent high crimes or misdemeanors, which Nelson has not engaged in AFIK.
The Democratic Party can campaign against him in the next election as a DINO, but, here again, one approaches a lithmus test for the Party’s candidates. I think the far more honorable and politically astute path to take is for the D. Party to simply fund and campaign for his challenger in the next Primary. Completely, legal, ethical, and honorable, on the claim they simply have a better candidate who will better represent Democratic Platform objectives and philosophy.
I have offered the same advice to Republicans, but, most don’t want to hear it. I had hoped the Tea Partyers would embrace the concept, but, their focus duplicates the GOP in focusing on liberals to defeat in Nov., not conservatives in name only.
Posted by: David R. Remer at February 10, 2010 01:41 PMBill,
Why it is my personal opinion, I do believe SS needs reformed. For why the 1% interest paid by the Government may have sounded great when we were all kids. I do believe the best way to stop Congress from abusing the Fund is to require the SS Overseers to invest in the Infrastructure of the 21st Century.
Because surely even the Seniors (i.e. the Youth of the 60’s and Silver Spoons of the 70’s) can see the advantage of increased returns on the Money of “We the People.” In fact, with the number of Skilled and Unskilled Labor needed over the next 50 years to totally revamp Americas’ Highways and By-ways in a manner that would reduce the cost of doing business for Commerce and Industry as well as help Americas’ Consumers, Small Business Ownners, and Taxpayers save money would be IMHO be the best way Americans could put their Retirement Funds to work.
However, I wonder if the Republicans (Management) and the Tea Partyers (Conservatives) are smart enough to realize that SS is an Argument of “We” and not “I.” For given their Party of No-Nothing, I wonder if they would support President Obama proposing such policy change. Or would they be willing to allow every American to invest their SS Funds into the next slush fund for the Members of Congress?
Because why it would be great to know every Community Hospital, Medical Facilities, and Rest Homes had the Proper Trust Fund to operate at prices the average American could afford, given the increase in healthcare premiums over the last 10 years I wonder if the Health Insurance Industry has done their duty or followed the Congress of the 20th Century and spent all the Reserves paid for by the Citizens of the 40’s and 50’s?
Posted by: Henry Scglatman at February 10, 2010 08:32 PMHenry
Too late for investing the SS bonds , They were scheduled to start comming due in2018 but with such high unemployment that may be sooner. If ones looks back,there is good reason to believe that had the funds been invested they would have lost considerable value. 1% is much better than a loss. When the economy steadies up and the abberation of the baby boom generation passes, SS should naturally return to the pay as you go plan it was designed as and rates should decrease. The temptation for useing the increased funds built up for boomer retirement was just too much for congress and some administrations to resist. To bad so much of it went to finance wars and arms budgets instead of what you suggest. When you hear people say that we simply have to “reform” SS,what they are actually saying is that we simply have to steal the pensions that millions have been paying into for many years.
Bill,
It’s not to late for SS since Congress has used IOUs; however, I do believe the Baby Boomers need to get use to the fact that Tomorrows’ Health and Medical Procedurs and Services are not going to be like Grandmas’ and Grandpas’. And why I know they grew up with the idea that they can have everything. I do hope Congress and the Children of the 21st Century can learn to put their Parents on an allowance.
For why SS is a good program to supplement one’s retirement, seeing what they have done to their parents pensions and the 401k plans of the Youth of today, I don’t think the Youth of the 60’s and Silver Spoons of the 70’s deserve like Kings and Queens on the Peoples Dime. Basic Food and Shelter, but no way should Congress or the Children of the 21st Century have to pay for their Cable, Internet, and other Luxuries untill the SS Trust Fund is paid in full.
BTW, there is a core investment plan that never loses money. Problem is I can’t remember its proper name. You see Age does have a way of making you forget. Especially since your Grandparents won’t let me use it against My Brothers and Sisters of the 70’s.
Posted by: Henry Schlatman at February 12, 2010 01:05 AMDavid,
The introduction to this column is funny in a sad sort of way. Barack Obama’s principal qualification for office was that he was a blank slate on which the liberal media elite and the American electorate could superimpose their fondest hopes and dreams.
Now you complain that he acts like a neophyte?
Posted by: Lee Jamison at February 12, 2010 11:12 AMLee. First, Obama’s principle qualifications were his education in law, and ability as a communicator in addressing the concerns of the people. Those qualifications got him elected, along with some support for his being a person of color.
It is Congress, far more than Obama, who is acting the role of Neophyte, and if you read the article, I have to wonder how you missed the fact that inexperience was the label I associated with Pelosi and Reid, despite their long records in Congress.
Obama’s poll ratings, higher than any previous president in modern times, at this point in the presidency, is by that measure demonstrating both competence and the fulfillment of the voters who elected him. He was elected by 53% of the vote, and 51% of the public, in the most recent poll, say they approve of his performance overall.
So, besides misreading what I wrote, your contention that Obama is somehow failing the voters who elected him is not supported by the empirical data of such measures.
Nice try. No cigar.
Posted by: David R. Remer at February 12, 2010 11:59 AMDavid,
Why haven’t the Democrats just forced the filibuster? They don’t have to roll on the cloture votes, they could force the Republican’s to actually go through the filibuster. I’m not sure of any case where a filibuster has actually worked. While it would be inconvienant for the Democrats, surely they would prefer that to not being able to complete any of their agenda items?
Posted by: Rob at February 12, 2010 04:39 PMRob said: “They don’t have to roll on the cloture votes, they could force the Republican’s to actually go through the filibuster.”
I am not sure how to respond to your question: “Why haven’t the Democrats just forced the filibuster?”
The answer would vary depending upon the legislation being proposed. Remember, the filibuster is a mechanism designed to prevent the Senate from taking a vote on bill before the Senate. The rules of the filibuster today, are not what they once were. Multiple persons may now filibuster - hold the floor in debate of the bill, preventing the bill from coming to a vote. In the old days, only a single person could filibuster, and they had to remain on the floor, standing, and orating in order to keep the floor. That is no longer the case as of some decades ago.
I am not versed in the details of the current parliamentarian rules surrounding filibuster, but, its seems clear, the filibuster wastes everyone’s time, tax payer’s dollars, and prevents all other business from coming to the floor, without end if the 60 votes are not there pass a cloture. My guess is that Democrats don’t force prolonged filibusters because the polls demonstrate that such events would only serve to heap even more public acrimony toward Congress and both parties occupying it. In other words, there is nothing to be gained by it for Democrats, is my best explanation, right or wrong. I have no evidence to support this answer, it just appears reasonable in light of current polls.
Posted by: David R. Remer at February 12, 2010 05:25 PMDR
A big omnibus bill?As soon as the decision was made to keep insurance carriers involved kit had to be a big complicated piece of legislation. A major goal,agreed to by nearly everyone, is preventing carriers from excluding people based on pre-existing condition or dropping their coverage because thet get sick. How to do that?The only way is community pricing. How can you make sure that the community price does not sky rocket,forcing more to drop coverage, because the only people buying in are heavy users(sick people)?Mandates. Any other way? How do you then make it possible for those that simply cannot afford coverage to also be in the pool especially as sooner or later,they too will become users? Subsidies. Any other option?All ready we are talking about a very complicated bill. This does not even start to address cost controlling measures like exchanges,efficacy review and preventive care let alone funding mechanisms. Of course it is a complicated proposal. Its a complicated problem. Why is that the Dems fault?You can’t solve complex problems with sound bites.Are you saying that the American people are not capable of dealing with complex issues?I suspect you are right, but you won’t win any friends saying so.
1950? Me too.
Posted by: bills at February 13, 2010 03:07 AMbills, understanding the failings of our current system is complex. And one can fashion a very complex solution. But, one does not have to.
I am a pretty good problem solver according to my grades in school. I got to be a decent problem solver by being taught very early, to take big problems, and break them down into little ones, and do them separately as little problems, one after the other.
That is what would have worked for Democrats and their relationship with the public on this issue. This should have been an obvious route to take, since the opposition to any reform as intense and huge by the industry and GOP, was absolutely predictable. Pelosi and Reid demonstrated they DO NOT KNOW how to address big, complex problems in the political arena.
Instead, they saw their majority in the Congress, and pursued a straight line course through the differences within their own Party, to the whole enchilada at the other end. And in so doing, they alienated some of their own party and Independents needed to get it through in a timely manner BEFORE Scott Brown’s election. They blew it.
Posted by: David R. Remer at February 13, 2010 03:22 PMDR
Lets not forget the months Max Bacus spent trying to craft a bi-partisan bill to no avail. We should have just steamrollered them.How would that go over with Indies?
bills, my newest article following this one, addresses your question and then some. Thanks.
Posted by: David R. Remer at February 16, 2010 02:06 PMHTML Formatting Tips:
<strong>bold text</strong>
<em>italicize text</em>
<u>underline text</u>
<strike>strike text</strike>
<a href="http://domain.com/link">link text</a>
<blockquote>quote text</blockquote>
By clicking the "Post" button you agree to abide by the Rules For Participation.
