One can always find ways to disagree with individual politicians and elected officials. As humans, it's easy to find some area of disagreement with even persons with whom you would find close ideological synergy, let alone with those whose beliefs differ sharply from your own. What can be truly interesting in the realm of politics, however, is when political parties prove incapable of dealing with significant issues of the day. Republicans for example deserve rebuke for their failure to restrain spending in Washington, DC, and for their tardiness in finding consensus on immigration reform. Meanwhile though, the Democratic party, even locally, continues its rapid decline on one the most prominent issues this country will face in the coming years: Social Security.
The day after this week's primary, state Democrats leapt out of the gate, bashing Mike McGavick on Social Security, but offering no plan of their own to address the system's solvency issues. Though it's no surprise, it's still a grave disappointment for those that would like to see that program's problems addressed. Indeed, this writer has spent a goodly number of pixels in recent months dissecting the weakness of Democratic thought on this topic (here, here, and here).
It hardly needs explaining that Social Security faces a looming crunch with the coming retirement of the Baby Boom generation. Yet, Maria Cantwell in particular has no plan or position to deal with that challenge. I originally recounted on July 5th:
We have a system that is going to start paying out more in benefits than it collects in taxes by 2017, and whose unfunded obligations total $4.6 trillion based on the current structure (see page 2 in the main text of this report). So, in response Senator Cantwell wants to INCREASE the system's obligations?
Local Democrats trotted out Cantwell's same sad plan earlier this week, which entails increasing the COLA paid to beneficiaries. The issue of whether seniors' expenses are rising faster than the CPI might be an interesting debate, but raising the COLA clearly puts more strain on the Social Security system, not less.
While neither Cantwell, nor her party, have a plan to deal with Social Security's fundamental problems, they never seem hesitant to complain about those who will talk seriously about the issue.
Why should we care? Quite simply:
I obviously support Social Security reform, and I'd prefer personal accounts to make up part of a reformed system. But even if they don't, at the least I want a Senator for the next 6 years who is willing to be serious about the issue, especially since there's a good chance we'll see a substantive national debate on Social Security reform in that time.
The state Democratic party has been particularly effective in avoiding any serious discussion of this issue. Indeed, "[t]he sun rises, the sun sets, and Democrats won't talk seriously about Social Security. These are the events we can count on this election season."
But what will they talk about when the time comes? I've noted:
The goal will be simple: scare people at-or-near Social Security retirement age, who reform advocates agree won't be affected, facts be damned.
So what exactly did the PI recount that Democrats did earlier this week?
As props for Pelz's charge that McGavick favors Social Security privatization as Bush does, the Democratic chairman brought three elderly women before a microphone to tell how heavily they rely on the existing system.
Stunning, I know.
Clearly, I'm inclined to condemn such intellectual dishonesty:
But, don't take my word that this is a disingenuous move on their part, or even the word of conservatives and Republicans who have railed about this issue. Take the word of the Washington Post's editorial page, here and here. Or take that of liberal columnists E.J. Dionne and Sebastian Mallaby. Or even that of centrist pundits like David Broder and Mort Kondracke. Kondracke cites former President Clinton saying that the Democrats should have plan. But they, including Senator Cantwell, still don't.
We have a clear contrast between candidates and their parties, not only on this important domestic issue, but also on political strategy (and apparently governing) as well. Mike McGavick jumped into the general election campaign talking about issues, and differences between he and Cantwell. In contrast, Democrats start the general election telling us what they don't like, but give us no vision for any plan they might have to address a top-tier domestic policy issue.
Actually, in fairness, the Democratic plan for dealing with Social Security's solvency problems is actually quite accessible. Stop reading this webpage on your computer, reach over to your printer, and pull out a blank piece of paper from the tray.
Got it?
You now hold in your hands the Democratic plan for addressing Social Security's long-term challenges.
Inspiring, no?
I am the first to say the Republicans lost their compass after the 1994 House victory and after they balanced the budget. When John Kasich, the budget guru, abandoned ship and went to private practice, I knew the handwriting was on the wall.
Yet, when you think about it, the Republicans did spend but they spent less than if the Democrats would have. But, if the Republicans hadn't opened the checkbook, the Democrats would have crucified them in previous election.
So, yes, I don't like the Republicans spending all that money, but when you think about it, did they have much alternative? No, they didn't.
Posted by: swatter on September 22, 2006 08:07 AMThat is one of the best entries you have written at Sound Politics.
The Democrats silly plan is to not have a plan and vote and say no to Bush as long as they are in the minority.
I have heard State Represenative Upthegrove (Des Moines) speak, and a couple of years ago when the D's were in the minority in the House, the first pamphlet the D's got was titled, "Bitch, Bitch, Bitch, and vote no."
One reason Dino Rossi was so successful in this Blue State is that he was in the minority and decided he was still trying to get his ideas passed through, and come up with constructive criticism and discussion, instead of bitch.
The D's and Nancy Pelosi believe it is there best interest not to have an alternative but to regain power first and then they will be forced to make up plans that probably cost too much of our money to bail out a minority of the people. What is funny is that many liberals consider themselves pro-active and they are, but the party that represents these people is not pro-active.
Not to say Gramps and Grandma are not important, but I am 22 and we need a reasonable plan to fix the problems that continuing to get worse. The more the parties bicker at each other, the worse it will get.
Politics as Usual.
Posted by: Andrew Roberts on September 22, 2006 08:10 AMI was especially disappointed in the Hong Tran numbers. I know of five votes that will go to McGavick in the general but she hardly received any votes.
McGavick has been anything but inspiring. At least Rossi has some charisma that helped out.
I was also surprised that Burrage only had about (at my last review) 40,000 less votes than the other Supremes candidates who were about neck and neck (Johnson and Groen).
Whatever happened to the McGavick swagger? What happened to "we need an R in the Senate so this State has some say in matters"? What happened to "I am a successful businessman and I turned around Safeco"? His campaign has allowed Cantwell to define and control the issues.
And finally, wouldn't you agree a 50-50 split would have been better than the one he got? Your analysis sounds like a loser trying to find a silver lining. The numbers were just too great to rely on your analysis, which I like.
Posted by: swatter on September 22, 2006 09:20 AMThanks for proving the point of the post:
Which is a scare tactic - saying we want to lower taxes, or saying we're out to take granny's check?
If a Republican says a Democrat wants to raise taxes, do you think there's not a shred of truthfulness in that? Do you think the Republican would be right 51% of the time?
I've yet to meet any Republican that wants to 'take granny's check'. That's the definition of a scare tactic, but apparently that's beyond your comprehension.
Posted by: Larry on September 22, 2006 10:07 AMThat didn't happen. And you can't blame the democrats. The GOP plan the GOP wouldn't pass is about what McGavick is promoting now.
How about a bi-partisan proposal that has wings? I thought that was what McGavick is about.
Oh. We're having an election.
Whoever is sent to the cesspool in DC, I wish them well and hope they will be able to positively affect the transformation of our Social (in)Security system to something that will be able to actually deliver.
Posted by: mark on September 22, 2006 08:15 PMYou could argue about whether the numbers mean anything until you are blue in the teeth. But those are the numbers.
In the 8th District, when you compare Burner to Reichert: Burner 51% Reichert 49%;
I know Eric, they are not supposed to mean anything. I get that. Nobody voted. Democrats vote in the primaries - except in GOP counties!
So tell me, who is in better shape: Reichert or McGavick?
Posted by: thor on September 22, 2006 08:52 PM"A fix for Social Security would mean one that would actually be enacted by the Congress. When you have the White House and both houses of Congress, you have a good opportunity to pass a workable plan. Probably the best possible opportunity. Maybe even an obligation."
So are you saying that there actually IS a problem with Social Security? Because all the prominant Democrats I've heard say that there is no problem and that the Republicans are just out to steal Granny's check.
Either you're admitting there is a problem (in which case you should talk to your Democratic Representatives and Senators and convince them of this), or you're just being an idiot with your comment.
Which is it?
Posted by: Larry on September 23, 2006 08:04 AMIf either party wanted to fix Social Security, it would have been done long ago. But as long as it can be dragged out every election cycle as a tool for fearmongering and polarization, why bother to fix it?
Look, guys. Anyone with a functioning synapse can figure this out. Social Security is a failure. Our elected leaders have failed to fix it, and will continue to fail. Don't bother to wait for either side to get anything done, because they have had years of opportunity to fix this, and they haven't. As long as gullible people are willing to believe that if they elect so-and-so that he/she will go to DC and fix Social Security, both parties will continue to wheel out the corpse.
The solution is very simple. Give up on Social Security. It is not going to be there for you. Take the money you have now and invest it yourself. If by some miracle there is money in the SS system to be sent to you, consider yourself a lucky fellow. Go buy a postage stamp or something.
It's time to remove this particular debate from the repertoires of both parties. I'm tired of listening to it, knowing all the while that it will never go away as long as it can garner votes. If you have not figured out by now that this problem is not going to be rectified in your lifetime, then I don't know what to tell you.
As far as the people who need it now are concerned, they will have more for them if we just waive our future benefits somehow and take the initiative to invest in our futures with our own money. Yes, that means we will still pay taxes for it. But then, what else do we pay taxes on, the benefits of which we will never see?
Americans need to stop acting like cows waiting for the farmer to fill our trough and go out grazing for ourselves.
Posted by: ERNurse on September 23, 2006 09:18 AMWhat I'm saying is that if McGavick and the GOP's Social Security fix were workable, they would have passed it a year ago without the Democrats. Republicans have majorities in both houses and the White House.
The fact is that the proposal was impractical because not even the GOP Congress would support it. And that's basically the same proposal McGavick is pitching now.
What we need is a proposal that can be enacted. Short of that - all this talk about Social Security is just posturing.
Posted by: thor on September 23, 2006 05:19 PM