MyDD :: Kennedy vs. Frist: Social Security

Kennedy vs. Frist: Social Security

by michael in chicago, Mon Jan 17, 2005 at 12:12:55 AM EST

From the diaries--Chris

So today I'm watching the Sunday morning funnies, a.k.a. the political shows, as is my usual Sunday morning routine to get the blood pressure up. I'm flipping back and forth, and start with Face the Nation, and Sen. Kennedy, a leading liberal voice for our party, talking about several issues, Social Security among them. I flip over to ABC and watch Sen. Frist, GOP majority leader for the dark side, on This Week with George Stephanopoulos, who is also talking about Social Security. The contrast in the arguments could not be greater.

I sat there stunned, remote falling from my hands, as I watched Sen. Kennedy reinforce the GOP frame, and at one point actually talk about raising taxes to fix social security. In horror, I pick up the remote and flip over to see Frist on point, on message, and reframing several very tough questions just to repeat his message on his terms. I sit there shaking my head and again wondering why.

Their guys get it. Our guys don't. Point by point below...

I'll begin by paraphrasing Frist (I'd link to a transcript, but ABC doesn't post them, but instead sells them. Today's show was not yet available anyway):

Frist started nearly every response by talking about how Social Security was in crisis. He was methodical in using the word "crisis" in every response. When asked about Social Security being solvent until 2042, he reframed the question into when is a crisis a crisis, linked it to a medial diagnosis (he is a doctor), and how he viewed solving something before it was a crisis as the moral thing to do. This statement was ended with a questioning look and a tone that seemed to ask, " George, why don't you understand?"

One answer in particular I though showed a deft ability to link the common awareness of the recent tsunami disaster to the Social Security "crisis" Frist was selling. I can't remember the response verbatim, but Frist referred to the "tidal wave" of disaster such a crisis could bring upon our seniors if Social Security wasn't reformed now when we had the chance to avert such a crisis. The guy was brilliant. On message. Completely relentless.

Now let's contrast that with our side's representative this morning: Sen. Kennedy. This one has a transcript available. The response is to a question by Dan Balz, political correspondent of The Washington Post. Note even Balz uses Bush's frame of "private savings accounts" in his question (emphasis mine):

Mr. BALZ: Let me turn now to the biggest domestic battle that's seen on the horizon which is President Bush's plan to try to introduce private savings accounts into the Social Security system as a way to reform it and guarantee its financial stability. It was reported today in The New York Times that the president and the White House have enlisted the Social Security Administration to help make the case that the system is in crisis and to push for his accounts. What's your reaction to that and what should Democrats do about it?
Sen. KENNEDY: Well, there's a number of reactions. First of all, it seems that this administration tries to make a crisis on any political problem. We've got a crisis in Social Security, in the funding and the financing which we don't. We have a crisis in the medical malpractice as the cost for health care and it's not there. If the president wanted to really do something in terms of the health care, they could have signed the Patients Bill of Rights and provided more protection for people and to deal with this other kind of malpractices unless it's $2 out of every health dollar.

Note right out of the box Kennedy repeats Bush's statement of crisis, not only for Social Security but for medical malpractice as well. Yes he's adding a negative at the end of the statement, but the frame is being firmly reinforced by the way Kennedy is stating his response. Even his attempt at a jab Bush's is muddled and ends with a statement that makes little more sense in print than it did spoken.

So now we have the crisis in terms of the funding of Social Security that is non-existent. It's solid till 2042. And without any help, it'll be able to continue to 2075 with three-quarters of the benefits if there was going to be no help and assistance to it. All you have to do is raise the payroll tax on that and that would solve most of the kind of a problem that you'd have, other kinds of ways to dealing with it. And that is certainly something we ought to think about.

Again, he returns to his possibility of a point by again stating the president's frame, again with the negative tacked on to the end. He then goes on to name several facts without tying them to anything real or emotional. Then actually proposes raising taxes to solve the Social Security crisis that does not exist. But this is certainly something we should think about? Good God, he just keeps going willy nilly:

The Democrats aren't for looking for new ways to try and deal with the Social Security. President Clinton talked about private savings accounts. And if you had the kind of economic conditions that we had with President Clinton, Democrats would be saying, `Let's go about that and let's try that out now as a supplement to Social Security.' So we are prepared certainly. Democrats are prepared to deal with those particular kinds of challenges.

Sigh. Democrats aren't looking for new ways. President Clinton linked to the very thing Bush wants to do. Ending with the wonderful concept that Democrats would look at doing this if the economy was better, when Bush keeps saying that the economy is better. At least he buried the phrase "as a supplement to" in there towards the end. Small victories.

Could we do any worse in response to this debate? Rhetorical, of course. I'm just glad Frist was on another channel, so the two weren't seen by many people side by side. Never was Bush's plan directly refuted. Never was Bush's plan questioned. Never was Bush's plan referred to as privatization of Social Security. Never was the fact that such privatization would not fix the shortfall that Bush claims it will fix, but only made the shortfall worse. Never was the word "risk" "loss" or "gamble" used. Never. Not once.

Compare this to Krugman's response to a similar question in Rolling Stone:

You've been sold a scare story. Right now Social Security has a large and growing trust fund -- a surplus that has been collected to pay for the surge in benefits we'll experience when the baby boomers start to retire. If you're twenty now, you'll be hitting retirement around 2052. That's the year the Congressional Budget Office says the trust fund will run out. In fact, many economists say it may never run out. If the economy continues to grow at an average rate, the trust fund could quite possibly last forever.

I'm just amazed and frustrated. Is this really the best our side can do? Have we learned nothing? I think half the people in the Blogosphere could have framed this argument better.

Frist won this one. Luckily it was just a political talk show this time. If our side doesn't get on the ball though, I fear this talk show comparison may just be acted out in Congress.

Tags: (all tags)

Permalink :: 23 Comments :: Post a Comment

Democratic elite are still 'elitist' - And out of (none / 0)

And out of touch with the problems most American families and single people face..

I think that a lot of people would be a lot less nervous about the future if we could have some confidence that politicians wouldn't continue selling them down the river on health care.

The number one cause of bankrupcies and homelessness in America today is unexpected illness leading to unemployment.

It doesn't take long for a person with a chronic illness to have everything they own of value taken from them after they lose health insurance.

I hate to say it, but even Democratic Senators don't seem to 'get' how serious of an issue that is for many. We know that nobody cares about this situation in Washington by the tone of the debate.

We pay more and get less for health care, and increasingly, those big healthcare companies are taking everything people own, after they get sick, through no fault of their own.

STRESS is the #1 cause of disease in America, leading to hypertension, heart disease, stroke, and we now know, permanent structural changes in the brain that can negatively effect people's earning capacity for the rest of their lives.

Reducing stress would have lasting benefits on a multiplicity of levels.

However, those in power - ESPECIALLY the GOP, oftentimes seem so wedded to the idea of punishing poor working people for their very existence...

I am really afraid for America, its becoming a very cruel and heartless place...

by ultraworld on Sun Jan 16, 2005 at 11:31:09 PM EST

Private savings accounts are a diversionary tactic (none / 0)

The real goal is to slash benefits for Social Security and institute tax changes that shift more of the tax burden to the poor, and away from the rich..

Lets get that out in the open. The GOP is without shame.. So is the media for not calling them to task on a agenda that is going to hurt at least 80% of all Americans, probably more. Those who can least afford it, those who are already clinging to membership in the middle class by a thread.

The working poor and the (shrinking) middle class.

The only ones who wont be hurt are the ones who have made out like bandits in the last 20 years..

But are we really that surprised? I'm not.. Sad to say that, but I could see this coming ever since Ronald Reagan decided to go on the warpath against Social Security..

Back in the 19th century, the rich were RICH and the poor were POOR.

'Robber barons' they called many of the rich corporate owners..

Could it get like that again? I hope not. It seems incongruous in this era of increased global connectedness..

But the big mdeia companies all lean right and they have managed to frame the debate on their terms..

We have to stop using their euphemisms.. thats the first step..

They are always quick to accuse the Dems of 'class warfare' but they are the ones practicing it...

by ultraworld on Sun Jan 16, 2005 at 11:41:30 PM EST

I think it's simpler than that. (none / 0)

Private savings accounts is simply about enriching the huge Wall Street investment firms. Your Goldman Sachs, Merril Lynch, and such companies are going to make riches once billions of taxpayer dollars are diverted into their portfolios. This strategy is consistent with conservative trickle-down theory.

http://operationyellowelephant.blogspot.com/

by Vote Hillary 2008 on Tue Jan 18, 2005 at 09:23:18 AM EST
[ Parent ]

If the Dems don't step up to the plate (none / 0)

on Social Security and rein in the Fainthearted Faction, I'm ready to move to the Greens. One point I neglected to mention in my diary about the DNC Grassroots meeting in L.A. yesterday, was that there were a lot of grumblings from people who were tired of being ATM's for the Democratic party.

It's way past time for Dems to present an eloquent defense of Social Security and some brass knuckled attacks on Bush's privatization plan. If they drop the ball on this issue the party may very well be finished as a viable alternative to the Republican party.

by Gary Boatwright on Mon Jan 17, 2005 at 12:35:29 AM EST

Re: If the Dems don't step up to the plate (none / 0)

I'm starting to feel the same way. We need to be brutally honest with ourselves, and start calling it as we see it instead of playing the do or die supporter role. This is the way I see it: Kennedy is an old alcholic whose got a bad case of wet brain. Put him in the closet Ku Klux Byrd. The other guy that we have to get off the national stage is Jesse Jackson. Right now whenever issues come up that require some "spirtual" representive of our party, we trot out some guy who is supposedly a minister, who cheats on his wife, fathers illegitimate children, has been accused of corruption and can't even utter a sentence that I can understand. Put them all together, and the Democratic Party is presenting a hell of an image to the public - drunks and philanderers, who talk of nothing but the need for new taxes. Where is it all headed? We are going to end up splintering this party between the Greens and the Libertarians, and we will be ruled by fascists for generations.

by kvining on Mon Jan 17, 2005 at 09:13:33 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Kennedy's biggest problem here isn't framing -- (none / 0)

it's that he's just yammering. It sounds like he didn't even prepare for the interview. Maybe it never occurred to him that someone would ask him about Social Security.

For what it's worth, here's my idea on framing Social Security and framing the Republican Party at the same time: get the idea of "Starving the Beast" out in the open. Make people understand that Republicans are bankrupting the government ON PURPOSE. They are such radical ideologues that they will ruin our country in order to enforce their far-right ideology.

For example: "Look, Republicans just hate government and they're trying to bankrupt it -- they're doing it on purpose. They'll never tell you so but it's true. Their whole plan for Social Security is to ruin it. They'll wreck your retirement and then celerate about it. Ruining your retirement is exactly what they want. You cannot trust them."

This framing -- though the wording could of course be improved -- has the twin virtues of being true and being extremely damaging to Republicans. So why are Democrats so afraid of saying things like this?

by Dog of the South on Mon Jan 17, 2005 at 12:43:06 AM EST

Re: Kennedy's biggest problem here isn't framing - (none / 0)

I think what you've written is so clear and direct- kudos!
I think we also need to point out how much these personal accounts would help corporate America sell stock to newly entreprenurial, everyday folks who want to retire in style. If they get Enron'd or otherwise suffer losses, will the government support them? If they say yes, who'll pay for that and isnt't that just erasing the 'personal responsibilty' part of their platform?
If they say no, then why get rid of a program for SECURITY in retirement, one that is going to lastall of our lives if we stop raiding it for other purposes?
anyways, good post.

by bigdogjunior1963 on Mon Jan 17, 2005 at 04:04:01 AM EST
[ Parent ]

man... (none / 0)

This is why we need somebody with authority at the DNC. Somebody needs to lay down the law, but that's difficult when somebody as senior as Kennedy is the problem. I could imagine Dean calling Kennedy and not mincing words, telling him that his performance was terrible and that he's not to go on television again until he takes remedial communications lessons.

by joshyelon on Mon Jan 17, 2005 at 01:49:29 AM EST

Kennedy Did a Good Job (3.00 / 1)

Yes he used the word "crisis" to describe some facet of Social Security. Yes, the way Krugman describes it as better. But Kennedy says:

Sen. KENNEDY: Well, there's a number of reactions. First of all, it seems that this
administration tries to make a crisis on any political problem. We've got a crisis in Social
Security, in the funding and the financing which we don't. We have a crisis in the medical
malpractice as the cost for health care and it's not there. If the president wanted to really do
something in terms of the health care, they could have signed the Patients Bill of Rights and
provided more protection for people and to deal with this other kind of malpractices unless
it's $2 out of every health dollar.

So now we have the crisis in terms of the funding of Social Security that is non-existent. It's
solid till 2042. And without any help, it'll be able to continue to 2075 with three-quarters of
the benefits if there was going to be no help and assistance to it. All you have to do is raise
the payroll tax on that and that would solve most of the kind of a problem that you'd have,
other kinds of ways to dealing with it. And that is certainly something we ought to think
about.

The Democrats aren't for looking for new ways to try and deal with the Social Security.
President Clinton talked about private savings accounts. And if you had the kind of
economic conditions that we had with President Clinton, Democrats would be saying, `Let's
go about that and let's try that out now as a supplement to Social Security.' So we are
prepared certainly. Democrats are prepared to deal with those particular kinds of challenges."

Yes it sounded unrehearsed and on the fly, but it didn't sound as if he was conceeding much if anything to Frist.

Rahm Emanuel on Meet the Press meanwhile, sounded awful.

by risenmessiah on Mon Jan 17, 2005 at 03:48:19 AM EST

Help with some info please. (none / 0)

This site is read by people at the DNC and/or working up on the Hill -- can anyone tell us who exactly is responsible for prepping our spokepeople before they appear on these shows? Is it just freelance -- every official for themselves -- with no coordinated message whatsoever? Or is someone actually responsible -- and deserving of firing -- for these repeated, horrible displays? (I didn't see it but I understand DCCC Chair Rahm Emmanuel was just as bad with Pumpkinhead today.)

Here's a bonus question: Are there any prepared (either by Hill leadership or the DNC) talking points on the Social Security issue and if so could someone post them here? What, if anything, are our people working with?

Thanks in advance to anyone who can help with these questions.

by Steve in Sacto on Mon Jan 17, 2005 at 03:59:52 AM EST

Re: Help with some info please. (none / 0)

the short answer is "No", there is no "center" in the Democratic party from which a coherent and consistent message comes out.

Democratic leaders still don't get it. They aren't invited on the Sabbath gasbag shows to engage in informed and intelligent discussion of issues. They are booked to provide "balance".

So on one side we have the right-wingers, fully prepared with their talking points, and on the other side we have assorted Democrats who are either promoting their own personal viewpoints, or trying to engage in a nuanced discussion of important issues.

And the Dems get slaughtered every time.

I'm beginning to think that the Democratic Party is hopeless---a party that chooses for its congressional leaders one "Nancy Pelosi" and one "Harry Reid" still hasn't figured out that it needs a consistent message to convey to voters.

The GOP resurgence in 1994 didn't happen because they had a better alternative to Clinton's health care plan. It happened because they hammered relentlessly and consistently on the flaws of that program. And the dems still haven't figured that out....

(BTW, I think that Kennedy misspoke---he meant "raise the cap" on income subject to social security taxes.)

by p lukasiak on Mon Jan 17, 2005 at 06:53:34 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Help with some info please. (none / 0)

He misspoke because he got loaded the night before.

by kvining on Mon Jan 17, 2005 at 09:18:08 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Time to get rid of them (none / 0)

The whole damn bunch of our old guard leadership has to go. Instead of a tax increase, a more reasonable position os to simply advocate raising the cut off point for SSI taxes from 60k to 200k, along with an increase of the retirement age to reflect increased longevity. These two changes alone save the system from bankruptcy for a century or so. Instead, our leadership ends up shooting us in the foot by advocating a general tax increase, which will be chortled by the Murdoch-Drudge-Limbaugh Hate Machine all this week, and present this issue to the American Sheeple as a choice between "free markets" or a tax increase. Brilliant. How can we rid ourselves of these dinosaurs?

by kvining on Mon Jan 17, 2005 at 09:02:35 AM EST

Before we do the following (none / 0)

"The whole damn bunch of our old guard leadership has to go. Instead of a tax increase, a more reasonable position os to simply advocate raising the cut off point for SSI taxes from 60k to 200k"

Maybe you could educate yourself on the facts that show we need to do no such thing. You have fallen into the same trap as Kennedy, you are treating the Intermediate Cost alternative as gospel. And I suspect you don't even know the implications of that.

We need to go Krugman plus. We need to understand that this graph will continue to extrapolate EPI: Changes in Trustees Projections over time . We need to confirm in our own minds that outcome ( I ) of this graph is a floor, not a ceiling Trust Fund Ratios under the Three Alternatives .

You are proposing alternative solutions to a problem that simply does not exist. The economy did not grow at 2.7% in 2004 (Intermediate Cost), it did not grow at 2.8% (Low Cost), it grew at 4.0%. Which will blow the tops off the models once plugged in.

People just don't get it. Everyone who suggests changes in the current system are simply ignorant of the numbers underlying the projections in play. Given any reasonable set of economic numbers Social Security is currently overfunded. Let me repeat that: OVERFUNDED. And nobody can show me numbers that it isn't.

And anyone who has not familiarized themselves with those numbers will be treated with the same contempt you are so willing to put on Kennedy.

By talking about raising the cap you have shown that you do not know the first thing about the current state of Social Security financing. We don't need a raise in the cap. We don't need anything but a debate on where to redirect the excess payroll tax we are going to be collecting over the next twenty years.

It's not broke, it is instead overfunded and some people need to drop their cherished notions and smell the coffee. Because if you return to this debate without a thorough understanding of the numbers in play I am going to start getting pissed. Social Security is not broke: by the numbers

Ignorance is for the other side. For our part we need to start arming ourselves with numbers. Readily available numbers. There is no gap and privatizers cannot supply numbers that suggest there is. We can go right for the throat on this one.

Look Bush's plan makes demands on those earning more than $89,000. They have to finance a huge amount of borrowing to privatize a plan that for the most part does not benefit them. The solution is not to suggest raising their taxes, it is to point out that there is no crisis and all this is doing is taxing Doctor Dan to put money in Stockbroker Tom's pocket. We have the potential for enlisting every wealthy person who doesn't work on Wall Street. We have the opportunity to launch some class warfare of our own. Let's not screw it up by suggesting a totally unnessessary tax the rich scheme.

2.1% growth longterm produces an overfunded Trust Fund. We can grow out of this "crisis", every number suggests we already have and we do not need to conceed an inch.

by Bruce Webb on Mon Jan 17, 2005 at 10:17:03 AM EST
[ Parent ]

On topic (none / 0)

Why do I get the feeling that the Repubs have already settled on one or two issues for the 2006 election, ready to roll out in early to mid 2005 - meanwhile over here we are thrashing about and basically keeping our fingers crossed that whatever they decide is the issue of the election is something we can somehow respond to?

It seems that if we don't get two or three topics, soon, and stick with them relentlessly, we'll have lost the midterms before they even happen.

by spandrel on Mon Jan 17, 2005 at 09:09:49 AM EST

We have one (none / 0)

Social Security. We have the numbers they don't. "Bush is lying - again" is a perfectly sellable slogan. Because he is. Just yesterday he said that the cost of the fix has been growing every year we didn't take action. That is a flat out lie. The following table, drawn right from the official Reports of the Trustees of Social Security shows two things, things which need to get seared into the brains of everyone who engages on this issue.

In the face of inaction, the cost of the fix continues to shrink. They wanted 2.23% of payroll back in 1997 to fix the gap. They didn't get it. By Bush logic that should have put us in a bigger hole, they didn't collect 8 times 2.23% or a cumulative 17.84% of my average annual salary over those years. If that average is $40k we are talking $7136 dollars they left in my wallet to spend or invest. Now the 2004 Report says that not only did they not actually need that $7136, they only need 1.89% going forward. A problem that left unaddressed requires a shrinking fix is not a "crisis", it is hard to claim that it is a problem.
In the face of inaction the date of exhaustion has been pushed back from 2029 to 2042. A "crisis" that recedes into the future at a rate of 1.3 years per year is a "crisis" that never lands on your doormat.

Every year we exceed the economic numbers of the Intermediate Cost projection the payroll gap shrinks and the exhaustion date gets pushed back. And we beat them thoroughly in 2004. Extrapolate the numbers in the chart. It is not broken and we can make Bush choke on that fact.

Changes in the Trustees Projections over time

by Bruce Webb on Mon Jan 17, 2005 at 10:36:35 AM EST
[ Parent ]

I Thought Kennedy Was Great... (none / 0)

He said all the right things...I think you misheard him...He said there was no crisis...

by Oleary25 on Mon Jan 17, 2005 at 10:10:15 AM EST

I heard him just fine. (none / 0)

He said:
"We've got a crisis in Social Security, in the funding and the financing which we don't."

He said Bush's exact talking point then added "not" on the end. That is not effective, nor does it present any oppositional point of view other than disagreement. This is easily cast by the GOP as 1: head in the sand, doesn't realize there's a crisis and 2: nothing more than obstruction.

Compare to Krugman's response. Krugman offers a completely different frame that does more than simply negate the GOP talking point.

If we argue "is" vs. "is not" we look like 3rd graders and we lose.

Witty comment goes here...

by michael in chicago on Mon Jan 17, 2005 at 10:24:29 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Framing (none / 0)

Thanks for the critical look at the exact wording of Kennedys speech. Although I'm still a novice when it comes to framing, its clear we need to take a critical look at exactly what wording is being used by Democrats to put forth the message. I pretty much agree with your accessement that Kennedy is repeating their frame. It looks like the DNC and democratic leaders need a speech coach to avoid this type problem in the future.

This type speech was probably perfectly acceptable in the past, but today, I think we know better. We can't afford to be sloppy like this any more.

by CoolAqua on Mon Jan 17, 2005 at 11:10:03 AM EST

Re: Framing (none / 0)

"This type speech was probably perfectly acceptable in the past, but today, I think we know better. We can't afford to be sloppy like this any more. "

I think we (those of us in the blogosphere) know better. I don't think the Democrats in office do. Someone needs to have a mandatory training session with every last Dem on the Hill and Lakoff to beat some sense into them.

by davecarden on Mon Jan 17, 2005 at 11:16:18 AM EST
[ Parent ]

How would they know? (none / 0)

Puh-lease. From the balcony of the opera house, how do any of these guys claim to know shit?!

They don't.

As long as we keep picking our leaders from the dumbest of the richest, we'll keep getting half-assed results.

History shows: almost all US presidents were elitists and almost all US presidents were grossly incompetent.

It is merely the weight of available resources and desperate indiviualism that keeps this nation from falling apart.

by jcjcjc on Mon Jan 17, 2005 at 02:54:32 PM EST

Kennedy isn't good by today's standards (none / 0)

Kennedy is an effective political communicator by the standards of the 1960s and '70s.

He's very smart, but he's dated. He's not trying to raise his game, he's just coasting on his instincts. He's still an able legislator, but it's a good thing he's no longer compelled to try to run the party and be President (regardless of the reality of Chappaquidick)

by Andmoreagain on Mon Jan 17, 2005 at 08:27:10 PM EST

Everyone will suffer (none / 0)

Yes, the poor will suffer even more, the more the Republican agenda is put into place. And so will most of the middle class, who will drift towards and many into poverty. But the upper-middle and upper class will lose out too. This is because much less wealth is created by impoverished, uneducated, out-of-work people than by happy, productive people. They will also have less ability to buy. So for every WalMart which comes into existence, a Nieman Markus or two will go out of business. Unfortunately, most businessmen have a 10-year outlook at most, and don't really care as long as they get an immediate return. Only the most intelligent and reflective billionaires who understand this are on our side.

So the Republican agenda is self-limiting. It is not only intellectually barren, but logically self-destructive. Our job is to ensure that they be taken out of power politically before an economic collapse or an environmental disaster, both of which are very real possibilities.

by Hong Kong Chevy on Tue Jan 18, 2005 at 01:11:05 AM EST

You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.