The Fallacy of "Opportunities"

The Bush Administration is trying to assert itself by claiming that it will work with Democrats on legislation. Sounds like the husband from The Burning Bed coming back to Farrah Fawcett and saying "I'll be good, baby, come on, you know you love me..."

These "opportunities" for compromise, according to the White House, include the one program uniformly rejected by every single Democrat in 2005:

Signaling a new flexibility on issues in the wake of the Democrats' wins, Bush said he is willing to discuss Democratic ideas for solving the Social Security problem, including tax increases. "I don't see how you can move forward without people feeling comfortable about putting ideas on the table," Bush said when asked about the prospect of tax increases to keep Social Security solvent. "I have made it clear that I have a way forward that can do it [without raising taxes] and I want to hear other people's opinions." [...]

Two years ago, when the president began pressing to restructure Social Security, he set the most important terms of the debate: Private accounts had to be part of the solution, and new taxes could not. But since Democrats wrested control of both chambers of Congress in the Nov. 7 elections, Bush now faces a vastly altered political landscape [...]

Administration officials have said the White House is willing to listen to other ideas, including personal savings accounts that do not involve diverting Social Security payroll taxes, as well as higher payroll taxes to help cover the expected growth in the program's costs. Still, Bush emphasized that young workers should be allowed to divert a portion of their Social Security taxes into private retirement accounts, a proposal that went nowhere in Congress last year.

This looks to me to be a trap. Conservatives who have given up on Bush and looking to 2008 would like nothing more than to hang "they raised taxes" on this Democratic Congress. They're already whipping up fears about this possibility. While I feel payroll taxes should be collected above that $90,000 threshold (one of the craziest tax laws I've ever seen, literally keeping rich people's money protected), it's unquestionable that conservatives would use such an outcome as the reason for a potential 2007 recession, which is increasingly likely (incidentally, economic growth is already being revised downward for the third quarter). "Democrats raised your taxes, and look what happened," the story would go, even though that increasing the payroll ceiling would not add taxes to the vast majority of Americans.

Furthermore, there is no need to make this deal, considering how disastrous private accounts would be to the Social Security system (it'd dismantle it).

Just as the Democrats were able to stay resolute during the last debate over Social Security, so too must they say no to any entreaty from the Bush administration that could lead to private accounts. And just as the Netroots maintained a robust effort to keep Democrats in Congress in line during the last Social Security debate, so too must we be on guard during the 110th Congress to ensure that the program, one of the most successful in American, if not human history, is not gutted to please conservative ideologues.

Frankly, I see little reason for Social Security to be a top priority of the coming Congress -- at least in its first months. If, however, Democratic leaders decide to move forward with an attempt to plug the long-term deficit in Social Security (the trust fund could run out in 30 to 40 years) then they should craft a plan largely on their own without the input of the White House because the lesson learned from previous Congresses is that the Bush administration is willing to renege on any deal and screw any Democrat if they believe it will advance their policies and thus their political strength. While this might make it more difficult to pass reforms with George W. Bush in office, the legislation crafted during the 110th Congress can always serve as guidlines for legislation to be passed in a future Congress dealing with another President -- Democrat or even possibly Republican (though hopefully not) -- who is not as obsessed with partially privatizing the program.

Exactly. Social Security is not going bankrupt in two years. Bush can talk and fearmonger all he wants, but privatizing the system ought to be verboten. You want to talk after that, we'll negotiate - Bush-style (agree to my demands and we'll talk).

Similarly, Bush's rhetoric on "supporting a minimum wage hike" should be ignored, and he should be forced to veto legislation that would give the poorest Americans an opportunity to scrape by a little more easily.

President Bush for the first time endorsed a specific plan for raising the federal minimum wage yesterday, as he embraced Democratic calls to boost it by $2.10, to $7.25 an hour, over two years.

The president's backing greatly enhances the prospects for congressional approval next year of the first hike in the federal minimum wage since 1997. He stressed, however, that it should be accompanied by tax breaks and regulatory relief that would cushion the blow for small businesses.

"I believe we should do it in a way that does not punish the millions of small businesses that are creating most of the new jobs in our country," Bush said during a news conference. "So I support pairing it with targeted tax and regulatory relief to help these small businesses stay competitive and to help keep our economy growing."

There is absolutely no need for that. One of the last acts of Congress was to give massive tax breaks to business for R&D, et al. Raising the minimum wage for the first time in a decade enjoys 70% public support and shouldn't need to be tied to anything else. It's abominable that you can pay somebody nearly two times as much below the poverty line and have it be legal. Economic activity is strengthened by increasing the minimum wage, not reduced. It puts more money back into the local community.

Go ahead and veto that bill. Or let the Senate try to filibuster. I can't wait for the ads in 2008 if you do. There won't be a Republican party anymore.

If the Bush Administration's idea of "opportunities" are to try and make deals on legislation that doesn't need any, then I don't think we'll see a lot of cooperation in the coming year.