"The Perils of Obstructionism"
Michael Barone writes a very calm, analytical column on the change in the electorate and the Media here. I believe he is right on point. My favorite quote:
- "At the moment, Democrats seem determined to reject this progressive approach [W's Social Security plan]. But even Old Media's polls, often slanted on this as on other issues, show that voters recognize there is a problem. So far as I can tell, no Republican was defeated in 2002 or 2004 by a Democrat who pledged "no change in Social Security." Republicans who had a plan beat Democrats whose plan was a blank piece of paper."
Worth a read to give perspective to the battle!
posted by Jim | 7:58 AM
4 Comments:
The other point of view on this issue is that the Democrats have everything to gain by forcing the Republicans to put their plan (in detail) on the table. Not necessarily obstruction, just waiting for them to make the first move. I think its fair to ask for a detailed plan since it's Bush that's making the claim that it's a crisis today.
I'm also not sure I buy the argument that Republicans with a plan beat Dems without one; I don't remember Social Security being such a big issue until after the election.
I agree Social Security was not a large issue in the last election. I interpreted his closing sentence more generally: any Democrat who had a blank piece of paper on any issue could be beaten by a Republican with a plan on any issue. But he may have meant exactly how you interpreted it and I also would doubt there were many examples.
I will nitpick you a bit on your first paragraph: I do not remember a detailed plan ever being put on the table before the other side would offer ideas. From my perspective, W has put forward a potential start to a solution to a problem (it sounds like you don't think a problem exists?)and the Dem's are trying to say there is no problem and are questioning his motives without contributing any ideas. That is not the way it is supposed to work.
As to the problem: I have in front of me my work career summary of Social Security Taxed Income since 1959. You may not realize what has happened in the last 40 years, so let me share it with you:
1965 I paid some % on $4,800
1975 $14,100
1985 $39,600
1995 $61,200
2005 $90,000 plus or minus
I have paid the max in all these years.
2005 is 12.4% of my $90,000 - I do not have the percentages for the other years, but I am sure they were less.
Extend the curve and tell me we do not have a problem!
I strongly believe the Dem's should admit there is a problem and offer some constructive ideas on how to solve them - just raising taxes is not enough, and that is basically whot they offer!
No, I don't disagree, there is a looming problem with Social Security. I wouldn't characterize it as a crisis at this point; it will get there eventually. But Bush has painted it that way, so I think the least the Administration can do is put a detailed plan on the table to indicate what they propose to do.
I know there's a lot of political game-playing going on, and that won't solve the problem. But I think the Democrats are better off by asking to see the Bush plan than they would be by coming up with a plan on behalf of Bush to address the issue (and the right Republican strategy is to accuse them of obstruction). Almost any plan will cause pain somewhere, and given that Bush has the 'political capital' he can take the heat for putting out the first cut.
(Let's remember that health care is another looming problem, and when the Dems made an attempt to change it they got ripped apart. So I understand that no one wants to take the hit for proposing something. But Bush said it's his priority, so I think he's got to lay something down in detail).
Semantics - the reason for most political disagreement, in my opinion.
Crisis! If I get fired today I have a crisis. Agreed?
If I am notified I will be fired in one year, do I have a crisis? I think so!
They are certainly not of the same magnitude, but they are crises! And I will start looking for a job, retraining myselt, etc. immediately, wouldn't you?
That is what W is saying. Dem's should help instead of hinder, but they don't want W to get the credit. It is really quite clear.
On to other subjects!
Post a Comment
<< Home