Death and Taxes by Mimikatz

The lefty blogs have been full of discussion about what to do about Iraq, but the Bush strategists have another agenda.  An article in yesterday's Dallas Morning News suggested that Social Security would be on the front burner when Congress returns.  Based on a speech Karl Rove gave to college students and lobbyists before the congressional recess (and thus before Bush's poll numbers collapsed),  Carl Leubsdorf discussed a GOP plan to ram private accounts through Congress in much the same fashion as the Medicare drug bill two years ago, passing a bill with private acounts in the House, then any bill dealing with Social Security in the Senate, then go to conference and rewrite the bill, without Democratic input, to their fancy and ram it through both houses by brute force.  In this way the final bill would bypass the relevant Senate committees, even though it would be subject to a final vote in the full Senate.  But at that point the GOP leadership would pull out all the stops.  The column also noted that maverick Chairman Bill Thomas (R-CA) promises to introduce his comprehensive retirement security bill this fall.  Thomas may or may not be coordinating with the White House or House leadership.

This strategy seems like wishful thinking today, in light of Bush's collapsing poll numbers and the far greater popularily of Social Security.   It assumes, among other things, no indictments this fall, although that may be wishful thinking on our part.  More importantly, it assumes that some compromise is possible between the GOP "free lunchers", who think private accounts can be funded with insufficient funds, and those primarily concerned with Social Security's solvency.  Such a compromise would likely result in small, meaningless private accounts funded either with the annual Social Security surplus (currently about $180 billion) or with new money from an increase in the wage cap, the worst of both worlds.  And it would expose GOP House members at the polls.

But Bush's Idaho speech gives the Dems an opening of sorts to push back on another front.  Bush said:

So long as I'm the president, we will stay, we will fight, and we will win the war on terror.

If he means there will be no early withdrawal from, then we will be spending $100 billion a year for the next three and a half years.  In light of the current cumulative debt, now about $8 trillion, how can Congress think of spending the Social Security surplus (currently going for the war) on private accounts?  How can estate taxes be eliminated before we know the war is over?  If he means to stay until the end of his presidency, then this should be reflected in budget decisions.  So which is it?  Is there an end to the war in the foreseeable future or not?   One more reason why Bush should provide us with a definition of when a pullout can begin, aqnd how he proposes to get there. 

Comments

[Mimikatz]

That was a bit of a premature birth.

I wanted to add that I tend to agree with what Garance Franke-Ruta said yesterday at TAPPED--that Bush will paint the Dems as calling for immediate withdrawal and as appeasers right up to the moment he announces the withdrawal. I do not think he will stay in Iraq until the end of his presidency; I do not think that will be possible. But the Dems can, on the one hand, appear to take him at his word, in which case the planning and budgeting should reflect this, while still calling for renouncing permanent bases and clearly setting the conditions for withdrawal.

[Kagro X]

I'd be interested to see how the conference scenario plays out. My thinking is that if Senate Democrats treat this as business as usual, there's a real danger of losing big, and losing fast, as Republicans are swept up in reflexive pro-leadership voting.

But in the face of tough procedural opposition, the Senate GOP Leadership may not have any stops to pull out. Frist doesn't have any credibility left there. GOP Senators have no reason to yield to his demands. Any arm-twisting will have to come more or less directly from the White House, as Frist has lost his mojo.

Under this conference scenario, Senate Dems will have a responsibility to draw out Republicans reluctant to go along with a motion to recommit the bill to conference, and instructions to conferees to insist on the Senate position, both of which may end up losing, but at least the issue can be highlighted.

It's also worth noting that in any other Senate, i.e., one with a real and independent Majority Leader who wields actual power and commands actual respect, it would be possible to cow reluctant Republican Committee Members who oppose privatization to change their votes.

But Bill Frist is not that leader. Anyone he attempts to bring under his thumb now can simply respond, "Gee, Bill. Why don't I just wait you out and see if you change your mind about your threats, like you did with stem cells?"

[Crab Nebula]

It's important to keep the discussion of the "tax card" happening....we don't want to get caught off-guard. They need to run on something next fall.

[emptypockets]

just wanted to say, great post Mimikatz. It's good to see you front-paging occasionally. your comments & posts always wrap up all thoughts so neatly in the end that I (and I suspect others) am often at a loss for comments (as I am in this case) but don't take lack of follow-ups as anything less than a badge of how well you articulated everything. Really good stuff.

[emptywheel]

I'll repeat something I do too often.

Ever tell your favorite true conservative how much they have spent on bombing Iraqi children? In my experience, it is the quickest way to turn fiscal conservatives into democrats.