State Sen. Michele Bachmann, the Republican candidate for Congress in the Minnesota Sixth District, apparently favors the idea that is frequently called Social Security privatization, but she is going to some lengths to avoid saying so clearly, even to the point of flatly stating that she opposes privatization.
Here is how Bachmann answered an AARP questionaire about her position on “Will you support or oppose using Social Security taxes to fund private accounts?â€
On the day she announced for Congress, Bachmann said: “Those born after 1970 will not be able to receive Social Security benefits. That can’t continue. I plan to go to Washington to help the president work on Social Security reform.”
(A self-interruption here: It is false that those born after 1970 will be unable to receive Social Security benefits. If the system is not changed and if the current projections prove true, the Social Security system will be unable to pay full scheduled benefits after 2040. After that date, the system could pay 74 percent of full promised benefits. There is no date at which the system is projected to be unable to pay any benefits. End of self-interruption and next time, say excuse me.)
President Bush staked the first year of his second term on the idea of allowing younger workers to invest a portion of their FICA payroll taxes in stocks and bonds held in individually-owned accounts on which they could draw to finance their retirement.
During 2005, Bush developed a fairly specific plan but the idea never came to a vote. Bush has not adbandoned it and has pledged to try again.
This concept has been around for decades, promoted heavily by the Cato Institute, which used to call its Social Security wing the “Project on Social Security Privatization.” In early years, Bush also used the word “privatization” to describe his idea.
The concept has always been controversial and Democrats have often used scary rhetoric on the topic to secure the votes of seniors. (Al Gore called Bush’s idea a “risky scheme.”)
Over recent years, Republicans have discovered that the word privatization is off-putting to seniors and has advised GOP candidates to change the usage. The newer preferred usages include “individual accounts” and “personal investment accounts” to describe basically same the same concept that used to be “privatization.”
Cato, by the way, still advocates the same basic idea, but changed the name of its program to the “Project on Social Security Choice.”
When I first interviewed Bachmann about her Social Security views early this year, she specifically cited the ideas developed by Cato — the ideas formerly known as “privatization” — as the direction in which she wanted to go.
So I was taken aback when the campaign of Bachmann’s opponent, DFLer Patty Wetterling, put out a press release titled “Bachmann flip-flopped on Social Security” and linking to Bachmann’s statement to the AARP.
When I asked Bachmann about it last week, she led me on a merry chase. She first replied that she would not respond to Wetterling’s charges unless Wetterling started showing up at more debates. She then complained about a Wetterling ad that misstated her position on taxes (a criticism with which I agreed) . She then defended the accuracy of National Republican Congressional Committee ads that have misstated Wetterling’s position on taxes and that made a false claim about election years in which Wetterling allegedly did not vote.
When we got through those topics, I brought her back to Social Security. Forget Wetterling and her unfair attacks on you, says I, my question is what did you mean when you told the AARP that you oppose privatization.
Here’s my summary:
First she said benefits for current retirees shouldn’t be cut.
Then said that for younger workers “we should look at the idea of who will own our retirement.”
We should “allow for debate” of the idea of allowing young people to invest their own funds is something worth debating.” And “we need to look at those options.”
But “that’s not privatization” and if the AARP or Cato calls that privatization “that’s their problem.”
She came out in favor of “solvency” for Social Security.
When I accused her of giving me the run-around, I asked her:
“Without use of the word ‘privatization,’ do you support allowing younger workers the option of using a portion of their FICA contrbutions to invest in stocks and bonds?”
She replied: “To invest. Put the period after invest.”
I asked her what investment she might have in mind other than stocks and bonds. But she had to go.
“I asked her what investment she might have in mind other than stocks and bonds”
Certificates of Deposit
Savings Accounts
Annuities
Government Securities
Investments in their own business
Investments in their own homes
And, specially for Hillary Clinton,
Cattle Futures with insider information from Robert ‘Red’ Bone.
Caught in a lie. Again.
By the way:
Dear Mr. Black:
Note her choice of words as she backed off her position of record; her position favoring privatization Social Security.
She said we should “allow for debate” on this issue.
Eerily reminiscent, is it not? Eerily reminiscent of her words about the flat tax initiative, these days–she says only that it is “an idea worthy of debate”–yet months ago, she gave you the impression that she favored the flat tax; you reported that as her position and she never demanded a retraction.
Perhaps this “worthy of debate/allow a debate” stuff has become her standard operating BS response, whenever someone calls her attention to one of her outright lies.
It is obvious that Senator Bachmann does not feel bound by ethics, morals, or conscience when she is out to get votes. Lying to the senior citizens of the AARP or to reporters from the Star Tribune is as mother’s milk to her.
And if the fundamentalist lobby who are sponsoring her candidacy suddenly changed their minds and decided to support a woman’s right to choose, gay marriage, and a person’s right to die without big govenment intervention–I have no doubt that Bachmann would soon announce her belief that abortion, gay marriage and pulling the plug on Terry Schiavo are all ideas that are “worthy of debate.”
“It is obvious that Senator Bachmann does not feel bound by ethics, morals, or conscience when she is out to get votes. Lying to the senior citizens of the AARP or to reporters from the Star Tribune is as mother’s milk to her.”
Anyone with “an Ounce” of brains should be voting for Wetterling..
Your screeds are ridiculous. I fail to see the big lie here. They quibbled over the semantics of a single word, mainly because that word has been used to scare senior citizens that any modifications to Social Security will mean that they will not get their benefit check.
Bachmann has not changed her position on this issue at all.
Not so much a big lie as a bamboozle.
Eric Black - This is the second time Michele Bachmann has hung you out to dry.
She commits to a version, then recants months leater - at her convenience.
First, you were hung out to dry on the federal sales tax. Now, on Social Security. Same article, same hang out:
http://www.startribune.com/587/story/254232.html
I’ve given you credit for an upward sloping learning curve; but if you do not audio record every single word from that camp from now on, I’m wrong.
You criticize Wetterling, who’s not hung you out and who is a decent principled person, yet you give Bachmann a free pass, again. She’s evolving a stance I suppose.
You really, really need to cover the coven that the dark forces are planning in St. Cloud over the next few days. It will inform you about Sixth District thinking from the GOP camp. They call it something different, see the quote below. So, be there or be square, as a reporter and pursuer of truth:
“The Candidate Values Forum, which will be held at Joy Christian Center this Thursday starting at 6:30. The event is sponsored by the Minnesota Family Institute and 14 area churches. The candidates that we’ve invited are:
“Michele Bachmann, Patty Wetterling, Michelle Fishbach, Paul Stacke, Dan Severson, Barb Beniek, Nate Stang, Larry Hosch, Jeff Johnson, Tarryl Clark, Steve Gottwalt, Diana Murphy Podawiltz, Tara Westby, and Larry Haws.”
Wetterling will not be dumb enough to be there. That’s a guess, not anything I’ve heard. It’s uberChristian voodoo aka GOTV for those who hate, fret, and pray much more than thinking, as that’s difficult while the others come naturally.
PS. Don’t drink any of the Koolaid.
Hugh Hewitt would say Bachmann lied ….if she were a Democrat
I don’t know if the plan W put forward used to be called privatization, but I’ll take your word for it of course. It’s a defensible term, because it did call for putting a portion of payroll deductions into the (private) hands of the employee to do with as he/she saw fit, including private sector stocks or including presumably risk-free government bonds. (I believe the idea also included some safeguards for helping guide investments.)
I think the term ‘privatization’ is scary because it connotes taking our Social Security money money (which actually doesn’t exist anywhere now, as I understand it, except as a promise) and handing it to greedy Wall Street. But that path was never mandatory, and handing money to greedy Wall Street is what anyone fortunate enough to have 401-k-style accounts that they’re not stupidly keeping in government bonds all the time is doing.
So assuming the payroll tax remained mandatory, W’s idea was basically a way to get more people into what amounts to a 401-k-style plan if they chose. By and large, this would almost guarantee more people ending up with better retirement benefits than they would otherwise; some people would not, and we’d have to figure out what to do about that. (I seem to remember an old discussion here where we talked abut all this.)
So anyway, even more than with the national sales tax, this was and is a perfectly sane proposal. It’s not ridiculous to call it a form of privatization, and it’s also not ridiculous to not call it that: because it’s a vague arguably inaccurate word that has - thanks to AARP and Democrats who either choose to be alarmist or who genuinely don’t understand how to think about it - has become scary.
So anyway, the upshot: It looks like Bachmann wants to support at least looking into the idea but doesn’t want to use the word ‘privatization’ in the heat of the election, because she knows how that would be used and also (perhaps) because it’s not really an accurate term, especially given the air of ‘they want to take our money and give it to their corrupt lobbyist pals’ that has arisen around it.
Some Democratic posters here will accuse her of wanting to steal whatever remains of the meagre assets of the vanishing middle class and destroy all hope for the poor; and being dishonest about what she really desires. A few will also rant at Eric Black fo refusing to call her out sufficiently on this.
Ah! Already happening, I see.
I’m tempted to move to Stillwater briefly - what are the residency requirements for voting? - and vote for Bachmann, just to enrage some people.
“Hugh Hewitt would say Bachmann lied ….if she were a Democrat ”
Maybe, but the lie is all over a word game. Bill P. wants to play such word games because this fits into her lieing nut view.
It really is pathetic. All Bachmann is doing is avoiding a word to describe what her views on Social Security. That word is privitization. The Democrats have succesfully created an enviroment were that word means taking away Social Security benefits from the elderly, so of course Bachmann is going to avoid using it.
Maybe if the opponents of SOcial Security “privitization” would speak truthully about the alternatives and have legitimate debate we would not be having this thread.
Further, it is very disingenuous of a reporter like Eric Black to try to force a candidate to to use a specific term that they know has false negative connotations. IT would be like trying to force a candidate to use the word nig*er. “COme on, you know that is a word used to describe black people”.
Eric Black completely disregarded WHAT Bachman’s views were and was only interested in making her concede that these views were “privitization”.
Bachmann was very clear. She would support allowing young people to invest at least a portion of their taxes into their own accounts.
You are now free to label this as you choose.
Here’s the overarching explanation Michele Bachmann offers for the Bachmannian waffle factory - she’s very limited and very flawed. It’s her bottom line, she’s that, and admits it.
YOu see, from time to time, Michele Bahcmann reads different parts of scripture, and if she cannot maintain consistency, that’s because of a need to understand scripture - as with any text - and her flawed mind probably hasn’t the “credence” [or creed] to handle consistency I guess. But take heart, she wishes she were more knowledgeable - indeed, she says so, all that and more, to the Koolaid crowd but not to the general public where she flim-flams a bit differently:
“I look at the Scripture and I read it and I take it for what it is. I give more credence in the Scripture as being kind of a timeless word of God to mankind, and I take it for what it is. And I don’t think I give as much credence to my own mind, because I see myself as being very limited and very flawed, and lacking in knowledge, and wisdom and understanding. So, I just take the Bible for what it is, I guess, and recognize that I am not a scientist, not trained to be a scientist. I’m not a deep thinker on all of this. I wish I was. I wish I was more knowledgeable, but I’m not a scientist.” - Michele Bachmann interviewing with Todd Fiel at KKMS as quoted in the Stillwater Gazette, September 29, 2003.
Well there you have it. Not a deep thinker, Eric Black, so cut her some slack. She’s a victim of limited capability. Don’t beat up on her. She’s only running for Congress, it’s not as if she’s seeking responsibility for the church bake saie or such, only Congress, and there today’s Strib explained the job duties in the political cartoon; which is something she’s up to and willing to take on.
NIce post Paul S.
Eric Z,
I dare Patty Wetterling to run that quote as a campaign ad!
If the main criterion people based their votes on was intellectual rigor displayed by each side’s adherents, based on this discussion so far I’m not sure why Democrats would ever get any votes.
At the risk of taking the title for the most unpopular stance of the day….I’m in favor of doing away with social security (as we know it today) almost completely.
My wife received social security benefits (or, more accurately, her mother received them) due to her biological father being killed when she was a very young child. She received these payments until age 18; and they very much needed that assistance. I am in favor of maintaining some sort of support system in place for cases such as this. However, the population at large assuming they have a retirement account of sorts in the social security program needs to end.
That said, my parents and grandparents are counting on those benefits, as they have been promised to them their entire working lives. These benefits need to get to those individuals. I am 32 years old. I have no plans on collecting social security benefits when I reach age “x.” Furthermore, I am quite willing to pay into social security the balance of my working life- conceeding that I will never receive a nickel of it myself- IF my parents and grandparents can collect their benefits in full AND my children will never have to pay into this program.
Social Security as we know it today should end with my generation. When the program started, there was obviously a group that collected benefits without having contributed into the program. It stands to reason that some group will have to pay in and not collect on the backside of that. Let it be me. With all of the other options for building retirement savings available, there is no reason for individuals in my age bracket to be relying on social security as past generations have.
Of course, it would be political suicide for any aspiring politician to come forward with a philosophy like this. It makes complete sense; but they’d be torn apart by the status quo.
Huh? Got another possible explanation for you Eric, about the “consistency” gap, per Jim Bernstein, Commerce Commissioner under Jesse Ventura:
“She will manipulate, fabricate, restate, obfuscate, misrepresent, misquote, mistreat and use whatever tactic she thinks she might be able to get away with to make her point. Sen. Bachmann knows no ethical boundaries and has no discernible conscience except that whatever moves her agenda forward is acceptable because her agenda is “right” and everyone else is wrong.”
So, different views, her own is a she’s a victim of a limited mind; others see connivance.
I agree with my friends.
“My wife received social security benefits (or, more accurately, her mother received them) due to her biological father being killed when she was a very young child”
I understand the benefit part but in actuality a term life policy from a private insurer would be a cheaper alternative. Unlike the Social Security survivor benefit this policy would not disappear when the person turned 18.
But, doing away with the Social Security system, i.e. PRIVITIZATION is a very attractive proposal. This really should be on the table.
The current system is a program that was designed to remove workers from teh workforce when unemployment in the country exceded 15% of the labor force. By offering a “pension” paid for by the current workers the plan was to induce them to leave so that younger workers could then have jobs. When there was 27 workers for each recipient this type of idea had some merit.
When a program outlives its purpose usually it needs to be modified or eliminated. The time that this should have been addressed was 50 years ago, but now is a good time to.
The key here is transition costs. If people already in the system or scheduled to retire get the same benefits, yet young people can get out of contributing to those benefits, it leaves a big financial hole in the system that could be as large as $2 trillion. Where will that money come from? That is the great bamboozle.
I stand corrected…..I hadn’t given much thought to a term life angle as Mark brings up. Even better.
And it should come as no shock to anyone, but I also agree that Paul S had a great post a while ago.
We (the public) will eventually get to a point where these ideas can be brought up for comfortable discussion. Scare tactics only work for so long.
Rob Levine: Obviously, you adjust the “cut-away” age (for lack of a better term) to compensate for that transition. It may very well be that there needs to be a substantial segment paying in to round out benefits to the elderly. So be it.
Mark, racial slurs were never a government program.
“Where will that money come from? That is the great bamboozle.”
NO, that is the “transition” cost. There is no bamboozle. It is a simple matter of agreeing to some plan for transition.
For transition costs the easiest way to do it is to finance it. Future generations will be able to gain large benefits from having their own private accounts. They can continue to pay into the system at the same rate once the current “transition” retirees have “left” left the system i.e. died with the excess procedes being used to pay off the tranisition costs.
Some forms of tax increases and benefit changes would also be viable alternative. I support a combination of all three and heavily emphasize tax “increases”.
Well, I have proposed a plan in another thread that would call for raising taxes 10% on the top 25% of taxpayers, 6% on the next 50% and 4% on the bottom 25% of filers that would more than pay for the “transitition” costs.
These “tax” increases are not really tax increases. The middle 50% would see their payroll taxes go from 12.4% to 6% so it is a tax reduction. The upper income filers may even see some increased taxes, especially since this tax would cover earnings above $90k and all other forms of earnings like interest and dividend incomes. But the benefit they get is that now they have the opportunity to put aside up to 12.4% of their income into an account were the earnings and distributions will never be taxed. This is a very fair trade off.
As you can see, however, the opponents of Social Security privitization are more interested in throwing the word “bamboozle” out there than working on a solution.
Bachmann has a history of lying on this issue and others that much of the mainstream press ignores. Instead, they focus on her hair, clothes, pearls and pretty voice.
She’s trouble.
Actually, Mark, you’re missing the point again. Ms. Bachmann, in her response to the AARP, specifically states that Social Security reform needs to happen “without privatizing the system.”
Later, in the interview with Mr. Black, she seems to describe a system that is conventionally considered to be ‘privatization.’ So what is she excluding when she says ‘without privatizing the system?’ The AARP didn’t ask her about privatization, Ms. Bachmann introduced the word in her response. Is it not then fair to ask her to explain what she means, since its obviously not clear to the rest of us?
As we can see, the proponents of Social Security privatization are more interested in not calling it what it is.
Mark says “Some forms of tax increases and benefit changes would also be viable alternative. I support a combination of all three and heavily emphasize tax “increasesâ€. ”
The problem here is you’re now describing your own ideas. Which is all well and good, but doesn’t change the fact that Ms. Bachmann is unwilling to commit to a position of her own. Maybe you ought to sit her down and explain 1) what her position ought to be and 2) how to explain it to voters in a simple sound bite.
Steve B: We can also see that the opponents of privatizing social security are more consumed with attaching a negative connotation to what it is, than admitting that the time has come to address it objectively and honestly based on its merit.
Do whatever it takes to make the pubilic afraid of anything that empowers them.
Again that confab in St. Cloud is today, Oct. 12, at Joy Christian Center, sponsored by Minnesota Family Institute, starting at 6:30, don’t drink the Koolaid. Mark, you should attend, and see the other side of Bachmann.
And Mark, if you were questioning the validity of Michele Bachmann quotes or quotes about her - I believe that was a part of your posting, here are the links:
http://dumpbachmann.blogspot.com/2005/05/favorite-bachmann-quotes.html
http://dumpbachmann.blogspot.com/2005/06/michele-bachmann-bigoted-demagog-or.html
What I read of the comments from Mark, Paul S, and others is they LIKE the Bachmann position - as best as they understand it since she’s a moving target re consistency. They like privitization of Social Security and would or will vote for her depending on where they live, and would vote for Michele Bachmann on that basis, and from prior postings and comments; because they like the flat tax idea - be it a flat income tax or a flat federal sales tax.
We are smoking out the Real Michele Bachmann; and as Bill P. pointed out, marriage amendment puffery is sloughed off for the traditional GOP “values” consistent with the people she’s had in town for money, and the people who’ve shown up with money, and going out to the district to shake the money tree.
Let’s hope my faith holds true that people in the Sixth District will not be fooled and that they vote for the lesser evil the two party system presents, Patty Wetterling, who’s NOT evil, better than the other DFL caucus option, but NOT a Wellstone.
Coincidentally, we are approaching the sad Oct. 25 anniversary of Wellstone’s death, it is two weeks away, so Patty, stay out of small aircraft, please. Coleman backed in that way; and we’d hate to see Bachmann do it.
Jay says: “We can also see that the opponents of privatizing social security are more consumed with attaching a negative connotation to what it is, than admitting that the time has come to address it objectively and honestly based on its merit.”
Jay, we can also see that supporters of privatization are willing to say anything to avoid being pinned down to a position on the issue. Ms Bachmann says she’s not for privatization, but goes on to describe a system that sounds a lot like the Cato Institute’s privatization plan. Why won’t she just pick a position and stick with it?
I took a look at the AARP item EB linked to. On Medicare, Bachmann’s a real eye opener. She’s carping about her family’s clinic not getting enough out of it and would want Medicare costs in Minnesota jacked up accordingly.
Check it out. It is greed painting itself into a corner.
Crazy Bachmann can’t even avoid and\or obfuscate a question without sounding, I have to say it, crazy.
The intent of privatizing Social Security is not to make it stronger, or continue it’s intended purpose, or empower anyone. It’s to make money flow to those who would be able to charge people to invest that money. It’s all part of the war on the middle class.
Mark, love your posts where you attempt to dazzle with statistics. Unfortunately (for you), 100% of the time 63.2% of your statistics are wrong, 73.9% of the time they are only a partial statistic, and 88.8% of the time they are only used to muddle the conversation.
If my math is correct here, that makes you just plain wrong 225.9% of the time.
Who cares what it’s called - let’s give people an opportunity to invest in their own futures.
For Bachmann to avoid using a word that’s been poisoned by liberals is probably a smart strategy. That way she avoids the “Ah ha! You DO want to take away our children’s future and enslave all elderly people forever and ever in a tomb of gathering darkness” or some other silly piece of overwrought rhetoric (uh, see above “dark forces” post for a sample).
I think the comments supporting private accounts/privitazation/whatever you want to call it posted in this thread make an articulate case for further discussion.
I always find it interesting when a person with an opposing viewpoint starts frothing at the mouth. What’s the fear? That the left won’t be able to control the fate of millions of poor in this country? That people might have a stake in their own futures? The right might actually be…right…when it comes to self-determination?
Yea, I can see how that might worry you.
mbj: Here’s the fear: That if SS is privatized, what if the economy takes a nose dive, and everyone loses their social insurance? There have been periods longer than decades when the stock market retreated. Another fear is that the Republicans, in their SS privatization scheme, will actually force people to give their money over to Wall Street, which is well known for corruption. A greater fear is that our taxes will actually be raised to pay for this nonsense, as we’ve been forced to pay for other deregulation and privatization boondoggles like the Savings and Loan bailout.
We fear the greed of others - of the already well off, without compassion.
See my last comment, about greed appearing to be exposed. Ignore the elderly, the disabled, the taxpayers’ desire that the Medicare program be well managed; JUST pay my clinic more - it’s the nitty-gritty to ME and I expose that by my answer to the AARP. Linkover and have a look. Michele Bachmann’s sometimes articulate and to the point.
Crazy as a fox casing the henhouse.
Greed. That is what we oppose. We oppose the falsity of terms such as “compassionate conservative” or “pro-life.” The false rhetoric is on the right - to bad if some of you will not admit it. It’s how it is.
Michelle Bachmann’s fancy verbal footwork RE: Social Security privatization is very familiar to those of us who’ve been following the GOP’s efforts to slip privatization past us by calling it something else (or just plain outright lying about it). The preferred term of art among the Bushies and the GOP is “personal accounts”.
The Republicans like to talk up how Social Security is “in danger”, but the only danger Social Security is in, is from the Republicans so eager to get to give that $1.7 trillion trust fund to their brokerage-firm donor buddies (and to destroy a government program that works and works well, having single-handedly ended the endemic poverty that afflicted most elderly Americans prior to its implementation). As several commentators spent most of December 2004 through the spring of 2005 demonstrating (go here, here and here for starters), so long as the economy grows at anything above Great Depression levels of growth, Social Security stays solvent forever. Not for a few decades, but forever. Note, too, the doubletalk that Bush and his privatizers commit in order to make the case for destroying Social Security and giving its plundered corpse to the brokerage houses. Here’s Part One of the scam: To justify the gloom-and-doom scenario for Social Security, they assume average economic growth rates over the next thirty-odd years of around 1.7%. That’s what we had during the Great Depression. So they’re essentially predicting that the US is going to be a thirty-year-long Great Depression. But wait, it gets better: To sell the public on privatization, the Bush people claim rates of return that can only be obtained if the economy is growing at a peak-boom rate of over 4.5% to 5% per year forever. In other words, they’re predicting both Depression Forever and Boom Forever — at the same time.
Those who know the context out of which Social Security emerged understand that it was designed to be a social insurance program, not a retirement program. The idea is to pool risk to ensure that no one becomes destitute the way many did during the 30’s depression. Private investment of this money is the opposite of pooling risk.
Eric pointed out that SS projections say that SS will always be able to pay benefits, just at a lower rate than before 2045 or so. It’s not clear which projection Eric is quoting, but it seems as if it’s the middle projection. The “high” projection (the best case of the three the SS Admin makes) shows no foreseeable SS shortfall in benefit payment. The “high” projection has also been the most accurate historically. What Bachman and the GOP want you to accept is that there’s a crisis in funding SS that requires immediate action. Based on the SS projection most likely to be true, there isn’t.
This is more than a question of semantics. Check out any polling data in which people are asked if they’d be willing to give up traditional social security in favor of personal investment. What you’ll find is that people like Social Security, are skeptical of banking on personal investing for retirement and are loathe to give up SS for personal investment. People may have come to identify such a transition as “privatization,” but they’re afraid of more than simply that word.
mjb says “Who cares what it’s called - let’s give people an opportunity to invest in their own futures.”
When you put it that way, mjb, you make it sound like people today do not have an opportunity to invest in their own futures.
I think what you really mean is that this country should no longer provide a safety net for those that need it and instead promote an “every man for himself” mindset. Social Security is not a retirement program. Social Security is, as its name implies, a form of financial security for everyone, in the event that we become inable to provide for ourselves.
Multiple posters have blamed Democrats for the negative reaction to “privatize.” So, I’ve wasted most of the morning digging back to see which came first: Democrat criticisms or Republicans demanding that everyone stop calling it privatization.
In 2002, the RNC sent out a whitepaper telling Republicans to stop using the phrase based on their own polling. Up into 2005, prominent Republicans continued to refer to it as privatization–until it became THE issue.
A couple of fun nuggets I found on Kennedy (I know–wrong candidate).
Kennedy version 2000:
http://www.socialsecurity.org/election00/congress/mn-02-r.txt.html
Kennedy version 2005:
“Don’t be misled: neither President Bush nor any Republican in Congress has a plan to privatize Social Security. I will oppose any plan that privatizes Social Security, cuts benefits, cuts survivors or disability benefits, or raises payroll taxes.”
Jon K, I just posted a link to an article about that in another thread it’s title is: “Bigger and Better
When it comes to providing broad-based social-insurance programs, it’s the government that’s rational and the market that’s dumb.” http://tinyurl.com/yx7h34
It says exactly what you did about the purpose of social security.
Jon K makes a great point on the INTENDED design of SS. However, it is tough to deny that it has morphed into something different today, or at the very least the PERCEPTION has changed. If the gov wants to use SS $$ to keep people from living in dumpsters and freezing to death at age 75, fine. But- as Jon points out- it was never intended to be a retirment account. Uncle Sam perpetuates that misconception to the extent that we all get our annual statements in the mail outlining how much SS money we “will” receive, based on years of contribution. A large segment of the population still believes that the money deducted from their checks over the last 30 years is sitting in some account with their name on it- waiting for them to reach the age of eligibility.
When anyone proposes any sort of change in the program, these folks assume that someone is “out to steal their money.” In reality, the money is not theirs to begin with, but the opposition to reform uses this emotion as an opportunity to garner political support…..rather than explain the reality of the situation. I would suggest to Jon that “any polling data” that he refers to at the close of his post is greatly influenced by this. I’m not sure if it has ever been done, but I would argue that you would find a dramatic disparity in those polling results if you compared the responses of citizens under 35 vs over 55 (ie the elder group likely has a significant, shared perception that the gov is “sitting on their money” already. Why would they want to see a change in the program?).
Social Security operates with about 2% overhead- it is one of the most efficent and reliable systems ever administered (both publicly and privatly). The rules of the program can be tweeked (lift the cap, raise the retirement age- we are living longer, stop taking surplus money away from it, etc) to return it to a sustainable program. For all the talk about how MB’s “values” are in line with the 6th district- I would like to see some polling to see how close her position on this is to the people 6th. My guess is that her flip-flop is because her position is out of the mainstream. So much for “always knowing where she stands.”
bsimon: I, for one, would love to see the politicians (DFL in particular) go to the public with your claim that social security is only a safety net to be tapped when we are inable to provide for ourselves. Furthermore, I’d love it to actually be that. I have yet to hear any candidate from either major party make the rightful claim that social security $$ will NOT be available for those who are able to maintain a comfortable standard of living in retirement without it.
Although that is the way it SHOULD be.
Once again, why isn’t this story in the daily newspaper instead of buried on your blog, Eric? You’re consistently putting your best stuff on the blog–like Bachmann not providing any health care benefits to her employees–which is read by about .05% of the 6th CD voters. Meanwhile, the 6th CD voters who don’t come here are clueless.
By the way, this canard about only wanting to debate the issue of Social Security sounds an awful lot like Bachmann’s public statements about her gay marriage ban: “I love homosexuals. I just think the voters should have the opportunity to vote on this, that’s all.” But put her in front of her religious-right base, and it’s “Being gay is part of Satan.”
Shoot Jay, I’d just like a politician that can give a clear, definitive answer to the question “Will you support or oppose using Social Security taxes to fund private accounts?â€
bsimon: We are still stuck with the reality that SS is not being used in the manner which it was intended. You are proclaiming that social secirity functions (only) in a way we all know it no longer is limited to, then hammering anyone advocating an adjustment to the program that will address the current mis-allocation of those funds. Make a choice:
-is social security only to be used for those individuals in desparate financial need (ie the social saftey net you cite), thus “taking away” those benefits from the elderly population with a sustainable standard of living?
-OR-
-are citizens over a certain age eligible to collect those benefits, regardless of financial condition (admitting it functions today as a retirment account, not some sort of a magical safety net).
This is a little off-topic, but I just had a sad experience with a very misleading poll over the phone last night. First, I was asked several benign questions about whom I planned to support in the elections. Then, I was given a series of statements that I had to identify as making want to vote for Tim Walz (Dem) more, less, or no difference. The statements all started with:
If Tim Walz wins and the Democrats take control of congress….
…they will raise taxes that will negatively affect hundreds of thousands of american families.
…Nancy Pelosi will become the Speaker of the House and congress will repeal the Patriot Act, making our country vulnerable to terrorists.
…they will repeal Bush’s tax cuts and increase the tax burden for the average citizen.
…they will support gay marriage rights and fund abortions.
…etc, etc, etc.
This poll was ridiculously misleading and sad. I questioned the guy about who wrote the questions. Heck, he couldn’t even pronounce Gutknecht or Kloubachar. A whole lot of people would be mislead into being “against” the Democrats, given these questions. This sure makes me want to trust polls!!
Jay -
To the extent that we maintain the social compact inherent in social security, there is money to which citizens are entitled once they retire. One of the attractions of the program is that everyone contributes and everyone gets some level of benefit. Some people no doubt are under the misconception that their money is banked for them until retirement, but I suspect most folks correctly understand the way the system works.
Don’t you think it’s just bit dismissive to chalk up all of the opposition to privatization to misinformed or ignorant people? Many people really do like the security that SS provides, and they may feel that it allows them to take more risks in their 401k or other investments. They may also like the social compact aspect of it.
There probably are disparities in how people from different age demographics respond to polling questions re: SS. That may be because older folks have first or second-hand connection to the 30’s depression and “know” had bad things can get. Or simply because they’re in the midst of their old age and realize just how vulnerable a person becomes as the years stack up. Younger people have neither of these insights, have lived through the boom of the 1990’s and perhaps have a distorted view of just how low things can go (which is very similar to folks in the 20’s).
Gotta run, but thought I should respond at least a bit.
Ed E- welcome to the wonderful world of push polls. Gil is in trouble- but no one wants to talk about it. It sounds like they are scrambling down in the 1st…
Karl has a point. This goes to a candidate’s position on issues. It’s news.
It should be in the print version. Instead Strib’s print version gives uninformative fluf - spending and counter spending,
http://www.startribune.com/587/story/737079.html
Telling voters who collected how much and who spent how much does not do jack to make voters better informed on who they might wish to vote for.
On the blog every commentator’s already decided and no argument or counterargument moves voting. So “buried on your blog” is an apt description.
Strib should put issue-oriented items, like the AARP questions and answers, along with laying out the Bachmann stance on privitizing Social Security, how that stance has had visions and revisions, and what her supports on blog say about liking the idea — that IS NEWS that the Sixth District electorate can digest and process - or is that the wrong metaphor?
Seriously, what reasons has Strib for not putting these things in the print edition, prominently featured?
EB please post an explanation of this.
When the economy took a dive in 2000 my 401K lost 50% of its value. I am just now recovering from that. Why would I or anyone else want to privatize SS with a risk that high? The same thing will happen eventually, then what does a senior citizen do when they depend on the income from SS? I guess they starve, or die because they can’t purchase their medications….oh yeah, I forgot that is happening now because of the policies set forth by the Bush Administration and policies that Bachmann supports!
Ryan - Push polls hah. I’ve never heard of it. They should be illegal. I do think Gil is in trouble. I hope he is. He never should have tried to get back into the fight. Walz is a great candidate and he deserves a shot at it.
Social security is not a “safety net for those in need.” It is a defacto retirement program given to virtually every person in this country who qualifies (including my parents, in-laws, etc.).
I’m not a stats guru, nor do I play one on television, but I can read and the details I’ve seen (from both left and right) make it clear that there is a financial crisis coming. We can certainly debate about how great that crisis is, but let’s take a “middle” perspective. If this “middle” projection is accurate, then the longer we wait the worse the situation becomes.
How is it irresponsible to want to address this issue sooner rather than later? Sitting back and waiting for the problem to resolve itself seems to be the irresponsible course of action.
A couple of other points -
The system does not need to completely privatized in order to have an impact. Some combination would still work to reduce the economic squeeze.
Wall Street has more corruption than our national government? I’m always amazed at the faith displayed by the left toward government. It, like Wall Street, is simply made up of people - both good and bad. Simply because we call it “government” does not in and of itself make it a “good” institution.
As for “greed” - the reason the free market works as an economic system is because it taps into the inherent self-interest in every human being. You might think that’s a raw statement, but it’s the reason it’s a better vehicle for increasing human economic status than eny other economic system tried to date.
Yes, we have poor people in America. However, since the vast, vast majority have televisions, automobiles and housing…our poor are far better off than most other poor nations. Nope - it’s not the best situation…but it’s not too bad. And this is coming from someone in a very difficult situation financially at the moment.
Alas, Jon K is right….younger voters have no insight into how bad things can get. We need to establish national domestic policy on the assumption that Great Depression II is on the way. Jon points out that the “younger” generation has no insight into the 30’s, having only experienced the boom of the 90’s…..but I can’t hlp but wonder if we would even have a need for this conversation at all, had our social security program been able to benefit directly in any way from that “boom of the 1990’s.”
MJB:
“If this “middle†projection is accurate, then the longer we wait the worse the situation becomes.”
Historically, it hasn’t been nearly as accurate as the “high” one. That’s the one that projects no shortfall.
If the economy performs at the level required for investment in stocks to grow as much as privatization (sorry, that’s what it is) advocates claim, then under that economic performance level the revenue from FICA will make any crisis, perceived or real, disappear. There will be no shortfall at all.
Jay -
Are you advocating communism? SS should buy into the stock market?
recalling some recent discussion of tax cuts and their stimulative effects … the short story is tax cuts don’t pay for themselves.
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601039&sid=aDHF_YUEljiw&refer=columnist_sperling
quoting from article …. Any broad analysis makes clear that the stimulus effects of the tax cuts have not paid for their costs — especially as those projected costs rise to more than $300 billion a year by 2012.
A 2006 Congressional Research Service analysis concluded that “no evidence of supply-side effects from the tax cuts exists thus far,'’ and according to one study by the Joint Tax Committee, the 2003 tax cut will ultimately decrease economic growth in the long term.
As New York University professor Jason Furman points out, even the Bush administration’s own dynamic scoring estimate in their best-case scenario found that the tax cuts would raise long-run income by 0.7 percent, enough to pay for less than 10 percent of the cost of making the tax cuts permanent.
This analysis is consistent with the fact that real per capita revenues are virtually unchanged compared with 2001, while in most recoveries of this length they grew 10 percent.
end of quote
Jay -
Also, if SS had participated in the boom, it would have had to participate in the stagnation of the early 2000’s as well. It would be a bumpy ride.
Jay, you present me with a false dichotomy.
“Make a choice:
-is social security only to be used for those individuals in desparate financial need (ie the social saftey net you cite), thus “taking away†those benefits from the elderly population with a sustainable standard of living?
-OR-
-are citizens over a certain age eligible to collect those benefits, regardless of financial condition (admitting it functions today as a retirment account, not some sort of a magical safety net). ”
People accept putting money into social security knowing that 1) it is intended as a safety net for people unable to provide for themselves and 2) they will get something back, upon retirement.
It is part 2 that appears to bother conservatives the most - that there is not a formal relationship between what one contributes to social security and what one gets back out.
Yes, Jon….I am a communist! If you take the time to look at my posts, you will find that no where did I ever mention investment in Wall Street. Once again, fear tactics. I say that social security needs to look at some sort of privatization, giving citizens some sort of control. You counter with: Oh my God, the Republicans want to sink our social security program into Google stock!
Also, bsimon: Again you are missing the point. You claim “People accept putting money into social security knowing that 1) it is intended as a safety net for people unable to provide for themselves and 2) they will get something back, upon retirement.”
Fact is that it is viewed as a lot more than a safety net, and people feel assured, if not entitled to get some of it back upon retirement. I say, use it ONLY as a safety net and contribute to it HOPING you are never in a state to receive any of it back. Otherwise, call it what it is- a retirement account and with that admission, you have to allow for some reform in order to allow such a program to succeed.
point-of-fact: I am not advocating that social security be privatized….I am advocating that it be eliminated (see my initial post today). However, that scenerio being extraordinarily remote, I am willing to argue the merits for some level of privatization……..and I am not ashamed or hesitant to use that particular word to describe it. I would expect that we are all level-headed enough to recognize that “privatized” does not constitute “buy wheat call options and go short shares of GM stock.”
The comment about communism was tongue-in-cheek. Sorry that wasn’t clear.
If I remember correctly, currently I think it’s illegal for the SS Admininstration to invest in anything other than US Treasury bonds. The reason, at least historically, was that it wasn’t considered wise for the an arm of the government to own private property, it being communistic and all.
Jay -
Thanks for the transparency. How do you envision a privatized social insurance system working? Returns *may* be higher than SS, but what would the overhead costs be? SS is roughly 2%. Also, could your envisioned system guarantee minimum income at retirement, as well as benefits for children whose parents pass away, the way that SS does?
Oh, boy.
Here we have an example of a GOP extremist nut candidate caught in the act of telling two outright lies–to the AARP and to the reporter for a major metropolitian newspaper.
And in no time at all, the mighty minds of this thread have changed the subject to an endlessly extended discussion of whether privatization of Social Security would be “a good thing” or “a bad thing.”
Gentlemen–would tell me, please who is the candidate in the 6th district race who supports privatization of SS? If the answer turns out to be “none of them, officially, anymore”; perhaps we should return to the original subject of this thread–whether Bachmann is a liar?
Liberals and policy mavens–please do not fall for this anymore. When their attention is called to the fact that Bachmann is a liar and a nut, some of these guys will immediately go off into their “conservative policy is better because…” rants, complete with cherry-picked statistics, anecdotes from talk radio, and plain old “where’d you get that fact? I pulled it out of my ass” non-facts.
And before you know it, you’ll find yourself targuing the merits and downsides of conservative policy (an argument you cannot hope to win with these poor fellows.) When you could be be using the time to make an argument that you will certainly win: that Michele Bachmann is a deeply dishonest, extremist nut who was caught red-handed lying 1)to seniors and 2) to the papers.
Once again, my personal envisioned system would guarantee you would not receive anything upon retirement (for the current “younger” generation). Stand by our aging population because promises have been made (foolish as they were- they are still promises and we owe them that). Phase the program out completely and maintain a provision to address the minute fraction of the population that would be affected by extenuating circumstances, such as a child’s death of a parent. As Mark suggested this morning, this could be easily addressed via several avenues. And of course, funded by taxes- presumably at a tiny fraction of what we have become acustomed to today.
And I got the communist reference. Worry not.
I had a push poll a few months ago on the “Gay Marriage Amendment”. They wanted me to answer A. Should this be decided by the people or B. Should we trust the politicians to this matter.
My asnwer…neither…I said “don’t we have a law outlawing that anyway? Why do we have to amend the constitution?”
Her response…so you’d say b then?
Yes…push polls should be outlawed…especially when they call my cell phone.
Bill Prendergast: THIS JUST IN…..politicians are liars who tell voters what they think they want to hear!
If you are wondering who the liars are, I’ll save you time in your search: ALL OF THEM. Time is much better spent debating policy, as opposed to whether politicians mis-represent the facts. Everyone knows the answer to that one.
In fact, I’ll do you one better- politicians WANT us debating who lies and who doesn’t, because that takes the focus OFF of policy and facts behind the issues. Once Joe Public takes the time to educate himself on the facts….many of these politicians are out of a job. They have the luxury of knowing that there is still alvery large segment of the population that simply watches negative TV ad’s and that is the extent of their research. Citizens have the RESPONSIBILITY to debate and explore policy, as opposed to playing “who lied.”
Bill P said: “Michele Bachmann is a deeply dishonest, extremist nut who was caught red-handed lying 1)to seniors and 2) to the papers.”
That’s it in a nutshell (pun intended).
Jay says “Fact is that it is viewed as a lot more than a safety net, and people feel assured, if not entitled to get some of it back upon retirement. I say, use it ONLY as a safety net and contribute to it HOPING you are never in a state to receive any of it back. Otherwise, call it what it is- a retirement account and with that admission, you have to allow for some reform in order to allow such a program to succeed. ”
I find your logic - and therefore your conclusion - flawed.
Though i can’t help but wonder, where does Michele Bachmann sit on the issue? She’s never quite come clean, has she?
Jay says ” Citizens have the RESPONSIBILITY to debate and explore policy, as opposed to playing “who lied.†”
No. Well, close, but not quite. Citizens are certainly welcome to debate the issues, its a good way to figure out where you really stand on an issue, and which one’s are important to you as a voter. But, it is also important to know where the candidates stand on the issues, therefore a discussion of who is lying or not committing to a position is entirely relevant to the debate. While a person should know where they themselves stand before voting, I find it quite helpful to know where the candidates stand as well.
Bill P. -
One thing I can almost guarantee: You will never, ever concede a significant point. On anything. You will work and work and work until you can figure out a way to describe any opposing argument as meaningless, inherently dishonest, and its purveyor a cynical conservative looking always to lie.
That’s your oxygen. You need it.
bsimon, I find that bit of knowledge useful too…..but the sad reality remains that we will probably never know for sure. Politicians are a slippery bunch- on both sides of the aisle. Politics fascinate me, politicians irritate me. I’m afraid the best we can do is strive for a better understanding of the issues and push from the “ground up” for reform, if needed. Everyone knows any politician will bend to the will of the majority in order to get elected/keep their seat.
If you find that “honest” politician out there somewhere, let me know. I can tell you that it is not Wetterling, Bachmann, Pawlenty, Hatch, Coleman, Kennedy, Klobuchar, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc
There are solid reasons to not favor what W proposed too, of course.
There are no solid reasons to fail to understand it thoroughly, or to wring every argument and every piece of evidence through the Bill P worldview that conservatives care only about power and money, and to call it one more obvious Republican crime. Oh, and to call upon your fellow liberals to quit talking with these hateful people here.
At that point, I don’t care any more about the merits of this or that specific issue. At that point, you’so deeply wrong on something far more fundamental that everything else melts away.
Another politician that is living the short-term lie that Social Security can be fixed by not raising taxes, not reducing benefits and not raising the retirement age. Something has to give, hopefully much sooner than the 2040 loss-leading date. At age 40, I can’t say as I look forward to changes, but I fully expect to live longer than my grandparents - and expect to pay more if I will be receiving more. The privatization issue makes the system solvency matter WORSE by itself, and any Republican thinking that it can be called an improving overhaul needs to think of all Americans - not just themselves.
Bachmann will be following the far right Republicans with her votes in my opinion. As I am a disappointed Republican, I will be happy to vote for just about anyone other than her.
On a lighter note- I’ll level with you guys……..this whole blog thing is relatively new to me. I had been hanging out on the MN Vikings blog for a few months, but got so irritated with the mindless banter that I had to leave in search of something of a little higher caliber (at that point, anything different was better). Whether I agree with your collective logic, or whether you all think I am a complete jackass- the dialogue is much more enjoyable here. Thanks for humoring me.
Scott: As a self-described disappointed Republican, seeking someone other than Bachmann to vote for, take a gander at John Binkowski. He is a quality candidate who has not gotten any press, due largely to the “Wetterling factor” and the corresponding “anti-Wetterling factor.”
If anyone accuses you of “throwing your vote away,” punch them in the mouth.
Moderator, please remove the above comment. It was meant for another thread. Sorry!
What is she smoking? Since most of the public only listens to the sound bites they will here that she is fixing SS not privatizing it. She is just another NEOCON moron that just follows Bush and the rest of the “leadership” in Washington and will proably win. The mainstream media doesn’t cover politics and the issues. Freedom isn’t free but it does rquire participation.
“One thing I can almost guarantee: You will never, ever concede a significant point. On anything.”
Alright then–how about this–I concede that you are right, Paul S.–I will never concede any significant point. There…that should send you off into the corner for a while, scratching your head, trying to puzzle that one out, reconciling it with your irrelevant sweeping generalizations about other people’s characters.
Anyway, look. It’s not all about me, it’s not all about personalities on the blog, despite what Paul S. thinks.
Jay wrote:
“Bill Prendergast: THIS JUST IN…..politicians are liars who tell voters what they think they want to hear! If you are wondering who the liars are, I’ll save you time in your search: ALL OF THEM.”
Very fashionable cynicism, Jay, but let’s say you’re right. Abraham Lincoln and Michele Bachmann are both politicians, and therefore, in your worldview, are both liars. Does that mean that neither of them is preferable to the other? What if you catch one of them in the act of lying–to you–about an important policy matter? What do you do about that? Do you just dismiss it, and assume that the other guy would have lied to, on the same issue?
Winston Churchill and Adolph Hitler, both politicians, ergo, both liars, ergo no sense in making distinctions between any politicians on the basis of honesty–
Ergo, the time in this thread that is supposedly about Bachmann lying to Eric Black could be spent better in a recycling of tired old policy arguments about privatization–a recycling of arguments carried out by ordinary citizens who have little or no power to actually implement any of their views.
Unlike Michele Bachmann, who is very likely to go to DC and is very likely to cast a vote on the plan to privatize Social Security. And you tell me that it is no news to you that she is indeed a liar, and that our time here would be much better spent if we chased each other like squirrels around a tree with our sad little powerless views of “what is to be done?” about policy.
I don’t follow your thinking on why that is so, Jay. It is important for ordinary citizens to discuss policy, but in this particular thread it’s more important to keep our “eyes on the prize”: Bachmann is standing as the Christian fundamentalist candidate in this race (she is) and Eric Black caught her in two bare faced lies about a very important issue. That is much more interesting and important news than recyclings of privatization arguments–especially since none of the candidates no longer express any interest in the subject, and one of them is now making extraordinary attempt to avoid commenting on the issue.
Forgive me for not listing any specific numbers with this statement, but I believe the social security solvency is small fry compared to the medicare solvency issue, which our White House only made matter worse recently with increased benefit changes.
I’m thinking the mass-media hasn’t done us justice on publicizing this, as it only confuses the average reader more and/or bores them more. The day of reckoning will be coming on tax revenue & entitlement programs, and by somewhat easily putting it off on our children to deal with doesn’t help me sleep at night.
Republicans have been touting no new taxes for too long, and compounding the problem by not cutting similar gov’t expenses as that would detract voters. Something has to give - in the short term a few Republican office holders.
While being bold in my Republican unhappiness, I am not one of the many that voted against the party for the historic Ventura vote. Now is my time anyway I can.
You’ve changed my mind, Bill P. Congratulations…..I have decided to cast my vote for Abraham Lincoln instead. Your ridiculous banter is a little more cute than practical. You’ve illustrated nothing except the foolish lengths you will go through for the purpose of political spin. Nice work.
Ventura= wrong guy, right idea.
Scott, if you are one of the many who refuse to “vote against the party,” (EITHER party)….then unfortunately, my opinion is that you deserve to be unhappy.
“Here’s the fear: That if SS is privatized, what if the economy takes a nose dive, and everyone loses their social insurance?”
The same risk is inherent in the existing Social Security system. If the economy takes a nose dive there is no way that it will ever be able to meet its Social Security obligations.
A private Social Security account has less risk than the existing system because you do not have “political” risk. Since SS is based upon an expected promise of many people who are not even born yet to pay us when we retire it carries sinificant risk beyond financial risk.
” a form of financial security for everyone, in the event that we become inable to provide for ourselves.”
If this is the case then lets scrap the system. Clearly we can devise a better system that will help people if they are unable to provide for themselves. It can be paid from general fund money.
” but what would the overhead costs be? SS is roughly 2%.”
For all of the fear of Wall Street, the Vanguard Index 500 fund has an expense ratio of 0.18%. Its Wellington Fund has an expense ratio of 0.29%. I could not find a Vanguard Fund that had an expense ration higher than 0.80%.
“Also, could your envisioned system guarantee minimum income at retirement, as well as benefits for children whose parents pass away, the way that SS does? ”
Of course it will because people would qualify for other government assistance programs if they fail to meet income limits.
I would not guarantee benefits for children who have a parent that pass away from any governmental program. Private term life insurance plans are much more economical. Instead of paying for such insurance through Social Security you will pay for it yourself.
The same is true for disablilities. YOu can get a better disabliltiy plan from a private insurer or through your company.
If you do not get insurance to protect your family you are just negligent. If this puts your family into poverty then they would qualify for anti-poverty programs like food stamps.
Scott says “Republicans have been touting no new taxes for too long, and compounding the problem by not cutting similar gov’t expenses as that would detract voters. Something has to give.”
Worry not Scott! VP Cheney says “Reagan prooved deficits don’t matter.” Surely, soon their supporters will show up here to restate the same premise (my money’s on Mark). Borrow & Spend economics: this is not your father’s “trickle down” economic fallacy…
Jay - ouch. But point taken.
I admit to leaning to one of the two parties for almost all state/national elections. That is mainly out of practicality, as I do want my vote to possibly count - undeservedly not many independents get too far.
Until that time in life comes around, I strongly factor in my belief that the White House party needs to be kept in check by having the other branches be of a different party. Clinton gave in against his party preferences many times in order to get the overall business of government going forward. Whereas, Bush has been running on the philosophy that a 51% election vote means he gets 100% of his preferences - knowing Congress likely won’t stop him.
As such, I wish the independent advocates the best, but I don’t see the top of the hill toward political equality & respect in sight.
Like this morning, I agree with Mark 100%…..with the exception of the comment about beneficiary payments for death/disability of a parent. In the example closest to my family, the child in question was born to a single, teenaged mother. Obviously, a term life policy is not something a lot of 16 year old guys carry, just in the off-chance that they get some gal pregnant and then die. The government has some responsibility there (unfortunately, depending on your view). That’s just the way it needs to be.
Scott says “Until that time in life comes around, I strongly factor in my belief that the White House party needs to be kept in check by having the other branches be of a different party.”
Agreed. The Fed gov’t works best when there are different parties in charge at either end of Pennsylvania Ave.
Oddly enough, MN gov’t works well when there’re three legs on the stool.
I will mirror Scott’s observation that the executive and legislative branch needs to be opposing parties until we have more viable options in front of us…no possible good can come from allowing the GOP or DFL “complete” control.
That said- this is the primary problem with “party” politics as we know it today. The most viable option out there for moderate voters today are probably Blue Dog Democrats (MN currently claims 1 Congressman, Peterson)..
“In the example closest to my family, the child in question was born to a single, teenaged mother. Obviously, a term life policy is not something a lot of 16 year old guys carry,”
Then they are really not part of the Social Security system then either. They are just collecting welfare payments and that is what such a person would get if they are not covered by private insurance.
What you are arguing is that 90% of American families should have to pay much higher costs for death benefits that are not as good because some people are outside the system. THat is the story with the entire Social Security system. Virtually everyone is being made to sacrifice hundreds of thousands of dollars for people who cannot or will not provide for themselves.
Let’s get back to reality. Debating Social Security is off point. We can feel as we choose.
The point is who you buy the used car from Bachmann, Wetterling or Binkowski?
Binkowski is outspent.
Bachmann or Wetterling? This thread’s cynicism, “politicians are slippery,” is an excuse for Bachmann. She is.
Wetterling said Bachmann has wonky tax ideas. True. Wetterling said Bachmann favors privatization. True. Wetterling said there’s a GOP coverup of a predator the GOP put in charge of the child protection committee and she’s outraged and we all should be. True.
Bachmann weasels. True. Bachmann embraced a wonky tax plan and then said “I meant should consider.” True. Bachmann embraced privatization. True. Then waffled. True. She looks at Medicare and says, pay my DHS Rule 29 Christian counseling clinic more. True. Look at the linked AARP responses on Medicare. How else do you read her answers. Taxpayer interests be damned. Pay more.
My feelings, for Ms. “Should Consider” Bachmann; voters should consider Binkowski, and Wetterling each as a sound choice.
And voters should consider Bachmann. Consider her and wonder if there’s sawdust in the differential of that used car offered from Bachmann.
The war’s a mess that was started on falsehoods, somebody’s made torturers of our nation, we are producing a will to get even in a population that had directed resentment toward its prior dictator, and the GOP has covered up something that makes the cover-up crowd analogous to the hill people in Deliverance.
Wetterling, sell me the used car. The choice is clear.
And I bet, with the Strib hiding the real news on this blog, the really good used car ads are on a blog somewhere; and the used cars offered in the print version are suspect.
PRINT IT.
“no possible good can come from allowing the GOP or DFL “complete†control.”
I disagree. The faults of the political system are not to be blamed on parties or party structures, or the party system in general.
The faults are that the govenrment is a bureacracy that is bloated to the core. These entities do not operate the way a person or company does. These entitities maximize profits or “utility”. The government buracracy maximized political gain. Therefore, they will protect their personal pet projects and cover the back of the other guy protecting their turf.
Dora - Where are you? Tell Eric Black Karl is right. Put the news in the paper.
GOP mavens, what say you? In the paper or not?
Mark - you are correct but missed two points. One - special interests (on both side of the political aisle) make it virtually impossible to be pragmatic. Two - politicans govern to polls as opposed to trying to move them.
Mark: I don’t understand the difference between your explaination and “party politics as usual.” The so-called “2 party system” fosters the gridlock (failure by omission) or wasteful pet project exchange (failure by action) that is the failure of our existing political system.
“special interests (on both side of the political aisle) make it virtually impossible to be pragmatic.”
Well, I think my plan is very sellable because it has things both sides want. The Republicans want the capital formation in private accounts. The Democrats want to increase taxes on the wealthy.
Of course, the BEST alternative would be to make me dictator for a few years, even though I prefer the term Emporer because then you can have an Empress. I also would require a lot of concubines.
Eric,
Here is a quote you might want to pursue…..
Jim Bernstein, Commerce Commissioner under Jesse Ventura:
“She will manipulate, fabricate, restate, obfuscate, misrepresent, misquote, mistreat and use whatever tactic she thinks she might be able to get away with to make her point. Sen. Bachmann knows no ethical boundaries and has no discernible conscience except that whatever moves her agenda forward is acceptable because her agenda is “right” and everyone else is wrong.”
Why aren’t quotes like this being discussed about Michele Bachmann’s character, or lack of?
Not to put words in Mark’s mouth but I believe his point was that government in general isn’t built to maximize anything other that political gain. Party politics is a part of that but the higher objective isn’t to do anything other than govern.
Mark - what about “Great Leader” or “Dear Leader?”
“She will manipulate, fabricate, restate, obfuscate, misrepresent, misquote, mistreat and use whatever tactic she thinks she might be able to get away with to make her point. Sen. Bachmann knows no ethical boundaries and has no discernible conscience except that whatever moves her agenda forward is acceptable because her agenda is “right†and everyone else is wrong.â€
Sharkeyes - you could put almost anyone’s name in the space where it says “Sen Bachmann.”
“I don’t understand the difference between your explaination and “party politics as usual.â€
Because when you have a $2.5 trillion dollar budget you can have the Mother Theresa Party come into power and they will be corrupt. There is just too much power.
If you are in DC you can impact who gets things like casino liscenses. These are very valuable and Indian tribes are very willing to dump tons of campaign money to get the politicians to support them.
“Mark - what about “Great Leader†or “Dear Leader?†”
That really will not work with chicks. I mean, look at Hitler and Stalin…no chicks there. But Napoleon, he had chicks.
“That really will not work with chicks. I mean, look at Hitler and Stalin…no chicks there. But Napoleon, he had chicks.”
Good point…
Pat,
Google it!
Sharkeyes - way to miss the point. Try reading something through and thinking about it before firing off a stupid response.
My retort to you was a denigration of most politicians by saying you could insert, literally, most politicans names where her’s was listed.
Jay–
Don’t vote for Lincoln. News flash: Lincoln’s dead.
I’m sorry you dismiss the points I made about Bachmann lying to the Strib and to seniors are ridiculous banter.
Tell me–what is her *real* position on privatizing Social Security? You must have formed some opinion about that by now. Remember to show your work; don’t just insult other people’s thinking.
Fascinating discussion. A group who wants to debate the merits of SS, others who want to stick to the topic at hand (who are then dismissed as irrelevant) and those who say, pah, all politicians are liars anyway.
It was actually refreshing to see Jay come right out and say he wants to eliminate SS. So all his arguments come from that premise. Jon K and bsimon made some very good counter points about that. But I think one that didn’t quite get said is that Jay’s arguing for everybody contributing into SS but only those “who need it” (whatever that means) receiving it actually turns SS into a welfare program. Welfare for the ‘elderly’. And we all know where conservatives stand on welfare programs. It’s one step closer to his goal of being able to eliminate it. It reinforces the thinking, ‘why should I pay into something that I’ll never get anything out of’ or ‘if those people would’ve planned better they wouldn’t be in the circumstance of needing it’.
Bill/Dora/Karl-
Nice new thread EB started. Yes it is a poll. Yes it is influenced by the Foley situation having legs. But before you go look, here’s something dredged up about possible reasons for Strib giving Michele Bachmann a free pass:
Bless City Pages. They not only put up commentary, they put up original source materials:
http://img.citypages.com/imagebank/articles/27_1339/mikehatchletter.pdf
“Mr. Tice’s email also raises the questionable relationship between Mr. Tice and a blogger who undertakes “opposition research†for the Republicah Party.
“Mr. Tice has a history of strong ties to the Republican party, and when he was a columninst at the Pioneer Press he wrote columns attacking any idea to the left of George W. Bush. He holds his partiasanship tightly, aned is definitely a man with a mission. What surprises me is that he would take his direction from a Republican blogger.â€
July 24, 2006, ltr; Hatch to Gilson of Minnesota News Council.
So, all those GOP folks - is another sheriff in town? Is this a part of why Michele Bachmann is getting a free pass in the print version of the Strib.?
We can only go figure.
“conservatives stand on welfare programs.”
You bet, increasing it more rapidly that any Democratic administration ever though possible.
Eric - I’ll agree with Karl’s question:
Karl says:
October 12th, 2006 at 12:12 pm
Once again, why isn’t this story in the daily newspaper instead of buried on your blog, Eric? You’re consistently putting your best stuff on the blog–like Bachmann not providing any health care benefits to her employees–which is read by about .05% of the 6th CD voters. Meanwhile, the 6th CD voters who don’t come here are clueless.
By the way, this canard about only wanting to debate the issue of Social Security sounds an awful lot like Bachmann’s public statements about her gay marriage ban: “I love homosexuals. I just think the voters should have the opportunity to vote on this, that’s all.” But put her in front of her religious-right base, and it’s “Being gay is part of Satan.”
Eric Z - that comment is worth leaving on the Editor’s blog - asking about Doug Tice’s role in spiking the parts of Black’s stories that cover the Bachmann and Associates health coverage issue.
Bill asks “Tell me–what is her *real* position on privatizing Social Security? ”
Her position is perfectly clear. She wants to privatize social security, but not call it privatization.
bisimon-
Thank you. Now I get it.
Why doesn’t she just come out and SAY that? She’s a compulsive liar.
Like I said, she stated her position. YOu and Eric Black are the ones playing word games. It is very shoddy journalism to say the least.
The term privitization has been defined as eliminating the Social Security program. Stopping it completely, for current and future beneficiaries.
Michelle Bachmann does not support that. She clearly indicated this in her interview. What changes she supports she clearly outlines.
Mark–
The problem is that she clearly states a position on an issue to one person, then clearly states a different position on the same issue to someone else, then clearly states a third position on the same issue to someone else, and then when someone tries to find out what her position really is, she clearly states it’s time for her to go, she can’t talk anymore right now.
Your tolerance for lying BS from this candidate is surprisingly high, Mark.
Mark says “The term privitization has been defined as eliminating the Social Security program. Stopping it completely, for current and future beneficiaries.”
By whom? Besides yourself, of course.
tamiflu uk shop?
tamiflu medical Tamiflu Related To Pan Epidemic Outbreak tamiflu stomach flu Tylenol flu pregnant tylenol flu severe 718. Flu Shoots Baltimore flu treatments without tylenol! philadelphia flu shoots Tamiflu Generic home treatment of the flu tamiflu 60 mg Flu Shoots Copanys relenza vs tamiflu tamiflu hemorrhoid Shelf Life Of Tamiflu tamiflu flu tamiflu dosing instructions Tamiflu Pregnancy Stomach flu and treatments stomach flu asprin tylenol 642. acheter tamiflu Does Tamiflu Contraindicate With Acetaminophen what are some treatments of swine flu flu symptoms headache Tylenol Flu Med flu shoots companys stopped tamiflu early Chaep Tamiflu Without Prescription buy tamiflu without a prescription tamiflu antiviral stockpiling; Tamiflu Z-pack tamiflu suspension no prescription tamiflu without a prescribtion Parvo Tamiflu flu medication tamiflu swine flu symptoms and treatments Donald Rumsfeld Tamiflu tamiflu adverse events molen flu shoots 2009 Flu Season Update cdc + swine flu treatment swine flu in ohio Tamiflu Flu tamiflu for bird flu and 2007; tamiflu shelf life Pandemic Flu Home Care Kits tylenol flu night timeflu treatments without tylenol!
H1n1 Swine Flu "post-exposure tamiflu dosing" h1n1 flu symptoms Tamiflu Parov Canine tamiflu alcohol relenza vs tamiflu Homeopathic Treatments For Stomach Flu tamiflu hemorrhoid tamiflu flu Tamiflu Manufacturer tamiflu dosing instructions Stomach flu and treatments stomach flu asprin tylenol 642. Whats In Tamiflu acheter tamiflu weaponized swine flu; Buy Tamiflu W No Prescription flu symptoms prilosec flu shoots companys Swine Flu Facts Swine flu swine flu 1976 147. buy tamiflu without a prescription Chilli Cold And Flu Treatment tamiflu antiviral stockpiling; tamiflu suspension no prescription Tamiflu Invent tamiflu without a prescribtion flu masks Tamiflu Oseltamivir Phosphate swine flu symptoms and treatments tamiflu adverse events Flu Strain In Idaho molen flu shoots cdc + swine flu treatment Flu Remedies swine flu in ohio tamiflu flu Flu Prednisone Shot tamiflu shelf life tylenol flu night time Flu Treatment For Children tamiflu and effectiveness and safety tamiflu in dogs! Cheapest Tamiflu tamiflu for only 4 days ingridients of tamiflu Swine Flu Statistics intestinal flunumber needed to treat for tamiflu
Singulair Flu Shot "medwatch form for tamiflu" what if i don't finish tamiflu Natural And Alternative Bird Flu Treatments tamiflu otc tamiflu recalls Treatment For The Avian Flu tamiflu tamiflu manufacturer gilliad Stomach Flu Symptoms swine flu mask; panleukopenia and tamiflu Over The Counter Flu Prevention rebate on tamiflu, depo provera flu interfere! Buy Tamiflu Without Prescription tamiflu and seizure swine flu conspiracy Tamiflu Canine Parvovirus aids tamiflu flu; tamiflu nausea Swine Flu In Texas tamiflu invent prevention of flu Latest Reports On Swine Flu chilli cold and flu treatment gilead science donald rumsfeld tamiflu Flu Prevention tamiflu and parvo prophylactic tamiflu Government Tamiflu tamiflu roche swine flu death toll Got Better H1n1 Without Tamiflu tamiflu roche dick cheney? flu prevention signs Avian Flu Treatment who invented tamiflu rogaine flu symptoms Philadelphia Flu Shoots pravachol nexium actos phentermine tamiflu flu shot and tylenol, Star Anise In Tamiflu stock ticker who makes tamiflu does tamiflu work North Carolina Swine Flu influenza a tamiflu aids tamiflu flu; Flu Symptoms 2009 flu multnomah county oregon rumsfeld's growing stake in tamiflu fort detrick Bird Flu Pandemic pediatric tamiflu buy tamiflu; Swine Flu Course Progression Duration Treatment Tamiflu swine flu wisconsin? "generic for tamiflu" Order Tamiflu swine flu masks? tamiflu suspension Tamiflu Dose For Influenza tamiflu on line tamiflu stomach flu Swine Flu Test Tylenol flu pregnant tylenol flu severe 718. flu treatments without tylenol! Swine Flu In Cancun "post-exposure tamiflu dosing" home treatment of the flu Health Care Flu Shoot tamiflu alcohol relenza vs tamiflunumber needed to treat for tamiflu
Flu "medwatch form for tamiflu" "when to take tamiflu" Tamiflu Bestellen tamiflu otc tamiflu recalls Counterfeit Tamiflu Avian Bird Flu tamiflu tamiflu mexico; Tylenol Severe Fluswine flu wisconsin?
flu vaccine! Tamiflu Orders No Prescription swine flu masks? tamiflu uk shop? Tamiflu Order Without A Prescription tamiflu on line tamiflu stomach flu Que Es El Tamiflu Tylenol flu pregnant tylenol flu severe 718. flu tracker How Fast Does Tamiflu Work "post-exposure tamiflu dosing" home treatment of the flu Flu Shot While Taking Prednisone tamiflu alcohol relenza vs tamiflu Oculo Tamiflu 60 Mg tamiflu hemorrhoid tamiflu flu Flu Shot Side Effects tamiflu dosing instructions star anise in tamiflu Tamiflu Black Box acheter tamiflu what are some treatments of swine flu Remedy For Stomach Flu flu symptoms prilosec flu shoots companys Flu Vaccine And Coumadin Swine flu swine flu 1976 147. buy tamiflu without a prescription Bactrim And Tamiflu Together tamiflu antiviral stockpiling; tamiflu suspension no prescription Buy Tamiflu Without A Prescription tamiflu without a prescribtionnumber needed to treat for tamiflu
Tamiflu Adverse Events "medwatch form for tamiflu" "when to take tamiflu" Tamiflu By Vbulletin tamiflu otc tamiflu recalls Drug Treatment For Swine Flu tamiflu tamiflu manufacturer gilliad Buy No Online Prescription Tamiflu swine flu mask; panleukopenia and tamiflu Motrin Cold And Flu rebate on tamiflu, depo provera flu interfere!swine flu wisconsin?
flu vaccine! Swine Flu Vaccination swine flu masks? tamiflu uk shop? Mercury In Flu Shots tamiflu on line tamiflu stomach flu History Of Flu Vaccination Tylenol flu pregnant tylenol flu severe 718. flu treatments without tylenol! Swine Flu Virus "post-exposure tamiflu dosing" home treatment of the flu Cdc Indications For Tamiflu tamiflu alcohol relenza vs tamiflu Tamiflu Melbourne"post-exposure tamiflu dosing"
h1n1 flu symptoms Swine Flu In California tamiflu alcohol rebate on tamiflu, Tamiflu Over The Counter"medwatch form for tamiflu"
"when to take tamiflu" Tamiflu Medical tamiflu otc tamiflu recalls Tamiflu Price tamiflu tamiflu manufacturer gilliad Swine Flu Funny swine flu mask; panleukopenia and tamiflu Flu Shoots Essex County Ny rebate on tamiflu, depo flu provera symptom Cipro Tamiflu Drug Interaction tamiflu and seizure swine flu conspiracy Tamiflu Dosing aids tamiflu flu; tamiflu nausea Stomach Flu
This is a place where open-minded critical thinkers of all political persuasions encounter information and arguments that both support and challenge their preconceptions. The goal is not to eliminate differences but to narrow and clarify them. We begin with a bedrock agreement that the search for insight and clarity is important, serious - and fun.
We ask commenters to be civil and substantive and, if possible, good humored. We reserve the right to delete comments that disregard this request.
Do you use Twitter? Follow The Big Question.
Learn more about RSS