Lieberman Throws Bush a Lifeline

Destroyers rejoice, for it looks as though Lieberman is set to rescue your nefarious plans from defeat:
I spoke to a Lieberman aide this afternoon and this person told me that "the senator hasn't changed his position, that he has serious concerns about private savings accounts that would jeopardize Social Security. But he remains open-minded about reforms that would strengthen the program."

That may be true. The truth is that Lieberman's statements over the last two months have been enough in the grey area that that may be right. But to me, at least, the issue isn't whether he's changed his position, it's what his position is right now.

Lieberman fans -- a group in which I have sometimes classed myself -- might tell you that Joe's just dancing now. And at the end of the day, he'll do the right thing, though to me that seems in doubt. But even if it's true, quite frankly, it doesn't matter. The damage he is doing, perhaps irreparable, is now.

Here's why.

As we've said from the start, the key to saving Social Security is Democratic unity. Look at those folks on the Conscience Caucus list. With a very few exceptions they are only there because there's no Democratic cover to make the vote. That's created time for the public to look and see what the president is trying to do. And the more they look, the more they turn against his plan. Throw in a few Democrats supporting phase-out and all but a handful of them will firm up and vote with the White House. Let's say every Dem for phase-out frees up three Republicans.

At the moment, too, the trend of the Social Security story is all running against the president. He can't get the seats filled in New Hampshire, the polls are bad, the Republicans in Congress are increasingly worried, scurrying for cover.

Give him Lieberman and suddenly the President is making headway in the Senate where the key vote will be made. A high-profile Democrat, like Lieberman, for phase-out would probably nail down three or four Senate Republicans for the president. In similar fashion, it would put an equal number of Senate Democrats back in play. One or two of those Dems sign on and you'll see them bring more with them. With a shift like that, suddenly phase-out is back in business and quite possibly even filibuster proof.

On the House side, with a Senate pal for Rep. Allen Boyd, you'd likely see a similar change.

Even if Lieberman eventually decides to keep his hands clean when phase-out comes to a vote, it might not matter since his individual vote probably wouldn't be needed. The damage would already be done.

This is what I always have despised about many "DLC" Democrats even more than their actual votes: the way they seem to intentionally help shift the national political discourse in favor of Republicans. However much many may eventually come home when it comes time to vote, by using Republican Noise Machine Talking points, validating their narratives and providing cover for their lies, many DLCers have done significant damage to their own party.

It truly is stunning how mesmerizingly poor DLC Democrats can consistently be when it comes to message, and there could not be a clearer case than this. Regardless of how he eventually votes, Lieberman is providing Bush political cover to destroy Social Security just at the moment when it seemed as though we had created the unity that would defeat this corporate coup. This is just inexcusable. I say Lieberman be given around four days, three hours and twenty-five minutes until we start looking for a primary challenger.

Give his office a call. His website notes: "due to the volume of mail that I receive, I am only able to research and address those messages sent to me from Connecticut residents." For those of you who live in the nutmeg state, his number is (800) 225-5605, or (860) 549-8463 for voicemail. Tell Lieberman to stop giving Bush cover through indecision and poorly worded statements. Tell him to publicly oppose the destruction of Social Security through private accounts.



Display:


There's only one way to handle the killers (none / 0)

and the spoilers, and that's with a primary battle and the smell of defeat.
by smintheus on Sat Feb 19, 2005 at 08:38:56 PM EST

Re: There's only one way to handle the killers (none / 0)

The Democrats don't need a Minority Whip, they need a Stun-Gun!
by eddieb on Sun Feb 20, 2005 at 10:39:22 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Hammer Lieberman! (none / 0)

Sorry Kentucky Dem, I don't understand Lieberman's position or what the hell he's thinking. Whatever it takes to stop Lieberman from continuing to give Bush cover is fair game. That includes political destruction and all out political warfare. Perhaps Joementum would be a good candidate for a political human sacrifice.
by Gary Boatwright on Sat Feb 19, 2005 at 08:44:45 PM EST

Re: Hammer Lieberman! (none / 0)

Political destruction. Check.

Somebody get that guy out of office. There's got to be a Dem in that state that can paint him as a GOP/Bush supporter.

It's time to end Joe's career in politics.

Witty comment goes here...
by michael in chicago on Sat Feb 19, 2005 at 10:00:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hammer Lieberman! (none / 0)

I've been saying this for a week now.  We need to challenge him in the primaries--really challenge him.  This guy has caused too much damage to the party for too long.  Drop him.
by descrates on Sat Feb 19, 2005 at 11:26:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hammer Lieberman! (none / 0)

I don't understand "Vote Hillary 2008," who is probably a republican troll.

I just got back to campus so I am busy going through all my email as I have dial up at home.

Sacrice?  Jews don't do sacrifices.  The burnt offerings have not been done in a long time...a very long time.

The Kentucky Democrat
by kydem on Sun Feb 20, 2005 at 05:11:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

John (none / 0)

I'm a CT resident who voted for Joe in 2000 (got tp vote for him twice that November, in fact).  I'm calling up to tell them how irate I am that he's supporting the president's plan to gut social security.  Even though that's not what he said, if he thinks it's getting misrepresented to people as such, great.
by prometheus on Sat Feb 19, 2005 at 09:11:04 PM EST

Re: John (none / 0)

What's his Senate office Phone#, email, Home Phone#, and his Rabbi's Home Phone #.
by eddieb on Sun Feb 20, 2005 at 10:42:57 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: John (none / 0)

home phones are unlisted...they should have privacy at home.  it's common sense.
The Kentucky Democrat
by kydem on Sun Feb 20, 2005 at 05:12:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

National Call Joe Lieberman Day... (none / 0)

Something I'm trying to organize over several blogs.  
Some time this week, I was thinking Wednesday around starting at 10:00 am or so, try and jam his phone lines.  Especially if you live in Connecticut.

I'll post a diary abour this tonight or tomorrow once I've got a good date firmed up.

by Teaser on Sat Feb 19, 2005 at 09:19:29 PM EST

Re: National Call Joe Lieberman Day... (none / 0)

Good idea. I'll spread the word to the other bloggers.
by Chris Bowers on Sat Feb 19, 2005 at 09:32:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: National Call Joe Lieberman Day... (none / 0)

Thanks.  Please do.  I'll be posting reminder diaries here and at Kos daily, starting tomorrow. If you can let the higher ups on a couple blogs know, and if they want to plug it...great.
by Teaser on Sun Feb 20, 2005 at 01:01:13 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Rummy's successor? (none / 0)

Here's hoping he will be named as the next Sec of Def.  Then we will not have to deal with a messy primary in the national spotlight.
by bruindave on Sun Feb 20, 2005 at 12:16:05 AM EST

DLC has a serious problem.... (none / 0)

They are thinking its much harder to find smart solutions than to just talk about solutions.  

Social Security has a real problem starting in 2008(in a small way) and peaking in 2042(in a major way).

SS is a dollar in, dollar out program in general most of the dollars invested go straight out to retires.  SS increases at the rate of wage increase not at the rate of expense increase.  

This has major problems from a balance the budget angle.

  1.  Any change in population density hurts the smaller generation because fewer have to pay for more.  The natural tendency of government is to under save for expenses that are 10 years out, which the government seems to have done.  So the smaller generations will be over taxed relative to the larger generations.  We have 1.5 trillion saved as per Alan Greenspan and it is estimated to cost 10 trillion (this est is probably high but real will be bigger than 1.5 trillion).

  2.  Any increases in standard of living have to be applied to the retired so that in inflation adjusted dollars the retires will ALWAYS pull out more than they put in (assuming standard of living continues to go up).  Over time the fact that each generation is pulling more dollars out than they put in adds up.  

  3.  SS also funds a non retirement program so that not 100% of SS money is for the retirement program.  Any relative increase of this program creates budget problems for SS.  I don't believe this is currently an issue.

  4.  Not positive about this one.  As wages rise and unemployment rises does the wage increase % reflect that fewer people are working or is it relative to only the working population?  In other words if only 10% of people are employed at any given time in the future but they make 10 times as much money as today so that the per capita income is static will SS go up or hold constant?  If it would go up this is another problem with how SS is calculated.

These issues are real and except for 3 form the basis for a crisis in the future.  So what are the options to fix this?

  1.  Tax businesses-This has a negative effect on employment as you are making employees more expensive.  And this makes it easier to justify outsourcing jobs.  Even if you de-couple the effect from employees you make US coperations more expensive and force more business off shore.

  2.  Tax the rich SS recipients.  To get the kind of money you will need you will be lowering the definition of rich to where the middle class qualifies and this will cost you votes.

  3.  Raise Retirement age.

  4.  Lower initial benifits.

  5.  Lower the rate at which benifits increase. even averaging inflation and wage increase over time would fix the problem.

  6.  Increase the economy so that real growth pays for SS.  This is hard to do while SS increases at the same rate wage growth.  So you would need a growth in corperate profits but not growth in employee wages.

  7.  Find a way for some portion of the 1.5 trillion that is invested in government T bills to be invested in the Stock market so that it earns larger returns.  This is only a partial solution.

I would suggest that saving SS with increases tied to inflation instead of wage increase is very possible.  Using a 401k for the portion of social security that makes up the wage increase portion would allow the government to get better than T bill rate of return.

Having individuals who don't have any money to invest themselves pick which mutual fund or index fun to chose would allow the poor to see the power of investing at a personal level.  Most people don't understand how extreamly powerful investing is and how much of their money they are wasting by not investing.

If the poor saved more of their money the economy would grow faster.  The savings rate is what gives companies money to invest and grows the pool of total dollars in existence.  If everyone understood how fast invested money increases I believe more people would do it.

by donkeykong on Sun Feb 20, 2005 at 04:39:48 AM EST

Loserman (none / 0)

What disgusts me the most about Joe is I suspect he has more loyalty to Israel's interests than his own country's. Makes me sick. They should ship his ass off to Tel Aviv and be done with him. If there's one good thing that came out of 2000 it's that Israel was kept from a heartbeat of the US presidency. Talk about a coup waiting to happen!
http://operationyellowelephant.blogspot.com/
by Vote Hillary 2008 on Sun Feb 20, 2005 at 04:57:22 AM EST

Re: Loserman (none / 0)

you know that you are no longer worth typing a reply to.

we are hoping for peace in Israel.

The Kentucky Democrat
by kydem on Sun Feb 20, 2005 at 05:13:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Example for retirement investing (none / 0)

At 9% which is the historic average in the stock market in a S&P 500 fund the following is true.

If you could save X of your current before tax wages then you could retire in Y years to the same standard of living you were saving with.  So if you made 20k and saved 50% and lived on 10k then in 9 years you would have a yearly income of 10k which is what you are used to living on.

Savings      Years to retire 9%  

5%   35 years  
10%  27 years
15%  22 years
20%  19 years
25%  16 years
30%  14 years    
35%  12.2 years
40%  10.7 years
45%  9.3 years
50%  9   years

SS takes 12% of your gross salary.  If SS got 9% return and all your money came back to you and only the very rich were taxed for the SS non-retirement programs then...

If you were blue collar worker starting at 18 that would have you retired by 40-45 at the level you were making at 18.  If you wanted twice that you need only wait 8 years and retire at 48-53 or four times that and retire at 54-61.  With a starting wage of $6 ($12,000 per year gross) with no overtime (but a full 40 hours a week 50 weeks a year) that would get you $48,000 a year retirement by 61.

The safety of SS is very valuable but if we lowered the portion of SS that is safe to current standard of living (indexed to inflation) and raised the portion that is risked then the average return would go way up except in great depression times and even then no one would starve.

by donkeykong on Sun Feb 20, 2005 at 05:16:53 AM EST

Pension Funds Backing Away From Stocks (none / 0)

Note the article in the NYT Sunday (business section) in which it is noted that pension funds are starting to become disillusioned with over-reliance on investing in stocks, and are moving assets out.  So why should be doing just the opposite in Social Security?
by Bob H on Sun Feb 20, 2005 at 09:30:30 AM EST

Lieberman heart Wall Street (none / 0)

Don't forget that Joe stopped accounting reform in its tracks because he was worried it would her the CT finance industry (what about the economy post-Enron, Joe?).

Maybe Joe is feeling worried for his big donors again, plus he has some image of himself as a great statesman that solves the big problems of the day.

But the big problem of the day is not social security, it is Medicare and Bush's ridiculous spending policies. The biggest problem beyond the budget is obviously the ruinious foreign policy of the Bush administration, which hurts international trade and commerce, not to mention our reputation and peace in the middle east.

I mean, when was the last time people felt safe, happy and respected traveling as an American anywhere in the world these days?

Joe seems to have it backwards everytime and pick the wrong battles. The DLC is disenchanted with him. Since about 2000, their love of Joe has waned with every dumb move he makes. They like his positions on things like the War, but he really is an embarresment to the DLC cause, because he is a big schmuck who has accidentily helped the GOP wins seats in the senate, house, and white house since 2000.

I wonder if CT's AG could be talked into running against Joe? I doubt it, the CT dems are too excited about getting the governor's chair than actually challenging Liberman. The blogosphere needs to find an ex-Congressman or someone who has lost to a CT House member a number of times and has nothing to lose. Proping up this person with online funding would give them a shot. But a long shot at best.

by DaveB on Sun Feb 20, 2005 at 12:13:06 PM 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.