Fiengold & Nelson won't sign off against private accounts?

Were they absent, or have some other excuse?
WaPost: Democratic senators... were drafting a letter to Bush last night saying that so long as private accounts are "on the table, we believe it will be impossible to establish the kind of cooperative, bipartisan process we need to truly address" the program's problems. An unequivocal rejection of private accounts, the letter said, "would eliminate a serious obstacle to the kind of bipartisan process that Democrats are seeking," but it did not signal what concessions, if any, Democrats might make in return. The letter was signed by 42 out of 44 Democrats, plus Sen. James M. Jeffords (I-Vt.).
The only two Democratic Senators that didn't sign the letter (see extended entry for the letter and those who signed) were Russ Fiengold of Wisconsin and Ben Nelson of Nebraska.

Update (Chris): I just talked to Senator Feingold's Cheif of Staff. The reason he didn't sign is because he has been out of Washington since Wednesday as a result of the death of his mother. As such, he had no chance to review the letter. Obviously, he is compeltely with us on Social Security.

Update II (Jerome): The WaPost has the above numbers wrong, three persons didn't sign it. Fiengold, no surprise that he's on board and unfortunately had a death in the family. So the two other legit non-participants in the Democratic alliance against privatization are Kent Conrad of North Dakota and Nelson. Conrad, what is he thinking?


March 3, 2005

The President
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC

Dear Mr. President:

            We write in the hope that we can achieve a bipartisan agreement to strengthen Social Security for the long term and enhance the retirement security of all Americans.

            Soon after your reelection, you made clear that your Administration's top priority is to move toward the privatization of Social Security.  Your proposal would cut Social Security's funding by diverting payroll taxes into privatized accounts, which would weaken the program and force deep cuts in benefits.  Your Administration also acknowledged that the proposal would require borrowing trillions of dollars, much of which we know would come from foreign countries like China and Japan.

Democrats in the Congress believe this approach is unacceptable, and it appears that most Americans agree with us.  Funding privatized accounts with Social Security dollars would not only make the program's long term problems worse, but many believe it represents a first step toward undermining the program's fundamental goals. Therefore, so long as this proposal is on the table, we believe it will be impossible to establish the kind of cooperative, bipartisan process we need to truly address the challenges facing the program many decades in the future.

We were encouraged that Treasury Secretary John Snow suggested that you might be willing to abandon your privatization proposal and move instead to an alternative approach in which investment accounts would be established entirely separate and apart from Social Security.  As you know, many Democrats, including President Bill Clinton, have advocated just such an approach, with benefits targeted to working and middle class families who need help the most.  So long as such accounts remain entirely independent from Social Security and do not put the program's guaranteed benefits at risk in any way, we believe they deserve serious consideration as part of a broader effort to promote retirement security.

While Secretary Snow's suggestion was initially encouraging, subsequent reports indicate that you remain committed to your privatization plan and his public comments were little more than a tactical maneuver.  According to a story in today's Washington Post, "White House officials are privately telling Republicans that Bush is opposed to the idea [of accounts outside of Social Security], but does not want to say so because it would appear he is not willing to compromise."

Given the conflicting and ambiguous reports on such a critical issue, we urge you to publicly and unambiguously announce that you reject privatized accounts funded with
Social Security dollars or otherwise linked to the provision of guaranteed Social Security benefits.  Such a statement would eliminate a serious obstacle to the kind of bipartisan process that Democrats are seeking to deal with Social Security's long-term challenges and to improve the retirement security of all Americans.  

Thank you for your consideration of our views.

                                                           Sincerely,

Akaka, Baucus, Bayh, Biden, Bingaman, Boxer, Byrd, Cantwell, Carper, Clinton, Corzine, Dayton, Dodd, Dorgan, Durbin, Feinstein, Harkin, Inouye, Jeffords, Johnson, Kennedy, Kerry, Kohl, Landrieu, Lautenberg, Leahy, Levin, Lieberman, Lincoln, Mikulski, Murray, Bill Nelson, Obama, Pryor, Reed, Reid, Rockefeller, Salazar, Sarbanes, Schumer, Stabenow, Wyden.


 

Display:


Conrad is missing (none / 0)

Kent Conrad (ND) isn't listed.
by KimPossible on Fri Mar 04, 2005 at 11:27:01 AM EST

Feingold (3.00 / 1)

Isn't he out of washington for the time being?  I can't imagine him not signing on if he's around.
by The Jim Dandy on Fri Mar 04, 2005 at 11:33:04 AM EST

Re: Feingold (3.00 / 1)

You are correct.  Russ Feingold's mother died Wednesday.  He was scheduled to be back in Madison for a few events this weekend.  Now, those events have been cancelled but he is still in Madison for the funeral.
by ajwagner on Fri Mar 04, 2005 at 11:37:59 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Dems have it together (none / 0)

This is exactly the line in the sand the Dems should be drawing. Private accounts are the camel's nose on dismantling the program as an effective safety net.
Rrrinnggg... Time to change the government.
by Carl Nyberg on Fri Mar 04, 2005 at 11:33:19 AM EST

What about Nelson? (none / 0)

Why has Nelson not signed on?

by KTinOhio on Fri Mar 04, 2005 at 11:45:24 AM EST

Re: What about Nelson? (3.00 / 1)

Nelson is in the fainthearted faction, and I think that he is perpetually concerned about his image with his conservative constituents. bush has gotten chummy with Nelson and has courted him recently with a ride on air force 1 in an attempt to get a dem on board with his plan to destroy social security.
by buckfush on Fri Mar 04, 2005 at 11:55:41 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What about Nelson? (none / 0)

Nelson like so many Dems will discover that a ride on Air Force 1 and voting for the GOP on just about everything means nothing.  They'll wage an extra vicious campaign against Senator Cop Out and take him down big time.  Playing ball with Bush for a Dem politician is worse than playing with a live hand grenade.  That only explodes IF the pin is pulled.  With W there is no if or even when.  He'll turn on you at the next election with the most disgusting stuff guaranteed and sell you down the river on every piece of legislation or bargain.

Remember, even Ted Kennedy fell for this and a lot of people got hoodwinked on the authorization for invading Iraq.  The caveats were wose than worthless, a cruel joke of lies, lies, les.  Yeah, Max Clelland found out what the value of being patriotic was good for.  Three lost limbs and the lyingest scum cmpaign on the face of the earth.  Who has even heard of that God damned Saxby Fucking Chambliss since.  Just another vote for the noise machine, I guess.

aS FOR nELSON.  sKIN HIM ALIVE.  i'D RATHER STARVE HIS CAMPAIGN AND TAKE HIM DOWN IN A NASTY NO-HOLDS BARED PRIMARYTHAN WAIT FOR THE GENERAL ELECTION.The fool is going down to chimp central no matter how much he bows down.  Show some heart and courage.  Did you know that William Jennings Bryan was a nebraska congressman before his 3 Presidential runs.  Gotta be at least a little heart left outside Cornhusker gymnastics and footbal, doncha think?

by David Kowalski on Fri Mar 04, 2005 at 01:29:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]

But that highlights the best strategy... (none / 0)

...bludgeon the moderate Republicans in their particular races. Instead of focusing on how secure the seat might appear, the GOP will start to have problems teeing off on Nelson if the Dems start rateching up those tactics against the Lincoln Chafee's and Olymipa Snowe's of the world. Against the "pretend moderates" like DeWine, Santorum, Talent and Allen we just have to go "all out". Add in the opportunity to defeat John Ensign in Nevada, and that Frist is retiring in 2007 (and possibly Kay Bailey Hutchinson) and it's just a matter of seeing the glass half-full.

In fact, I've read on Talking Points Memo that Dem challengers are lining up to take on Republicans in districts with large numbers of retirees. Why else do you think other Republican-controlled statehouses are in a mad push to redistrict...they know without DeLay's power grab in Texas the GOP would have added only a couple seats in the House and they are desperate to increase their majority.

by risenmessiah on Fri Mar 04, 2005 at 02:03:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: But that highlights the best strategy... (none / 0)

Right on.  I'm beginning to see the seeds and strategy of winning political tactics. All of your ideas are great, and we still can do much more by taking on redistricting full tilt.  Along with going after so called safe GOP seats, we must start to play hardball.  As Machiavelli said... 'Strike the enemy where he is strongest'.
by morris1030 on Fri Mar 04, 2005 at 07:48:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Nelson/Conrad-Where & Why? (none / 0)

What could be stopping these two from signing? We know Feingold's mother died and was not in Washington.............but where are Nelson and Conrad?  Do they have to be cooerced, called, e-
mailed, or ANYTHING it takes to make them MOVE? We should do our [due diligence ]and watch, but NOT wait until it's too late.  We cannot send mixed messages on this.
by morris1030 on Fri Mar 04, 2005 at 07:43:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

And did you notice... (3.00 / 2)

...that Lieberman and Carper are now on record as opposing privatization?  Good news all around.

by KTinOhio on Fri Mar 04, 2005 at 11:56:11 AM EST

Frustration (none / 0)

Here in Minnesota, I can look out over the river and SEE Fargo and North Dakota but I can do little to push Conrad. Maybe Dorgan should beat him over the head a little. BTW, I saw Dorgan arguing about SS on CSPAN2 and I had to say I was quite impressed.
by MNPundit on Fri Mar 04, 2005 at 01:29:57 PM EST

Re: Frustration (none / 0)

Just saw in person in Philly.  He was very, very good.
Progressive Philadelphia Politics: Young Philly Politics
by DanielUA on Fri Mar 04, 2005 at 03:57:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]

asdf (none / 0)

Well, Ben Nelson is a DINO, so that isn't so surprising.  When I first read that Feingold didn't sign, I was appalled, and rethought my leanings toward him for 2008.  It would kill him in the primaries if he voted for privatization.  I also saw that my Senator Lieberman signed the letter, which makes me happier with him.
Max Friedman
by Max Friedman on Fri Mar 04, 2005 at 05:49:05 PM EST

Re: asdf (3.00 / 1)

Feingold didn't sign the letter because he is not in Washington at the moment. He's attending his mother's funeral in Wisconsin. Feingold would never, ever vote for privatization.
by craverguy on Fri Mar 04, 2005 at 07:50:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Conrad (none / 0)

signed the first letter on this, I believe. And also has strong language on his website on SS, saying that it is bad that Greenspan approves of Bush's dangerous plan. Let's not jump the gun on him. He might have been out of town, back in ND, for some reason. Ben Nelson, sadly, he is the fainthearted faction, didnt sign the first letter on SS enronization, he is a DINO, dont see him changing. But from what I can tell, everyone else is on board for now. This isnt over yet, but good news, nonetheless.
by jj32 on Fri Mar 04, 2005 at 08:16:32 PM EST

Re: Conrad (none / 0)

I wrote this post over on DKos earlier and I think it's an important thing to remember during this SS discussion if only because after the SS debate is done, there is still going to be more work to do:

Let's face it...

...having grown up in North Dakota and watching ND politics, I can tell you that what a fairly obscure Democratic Senator from a "red" state says or does carries very little weight on the national stage.  As a matter of fact, apart from frequent appearances on C-SPAN stumping for the occasional Farm Bill or ND Water Project, or occasional committee meetings, Senators Conrad and Dorgan have very little exposure.  
For this reason, I find it highly unlikely that blatantly opposing or not blatantly opposing the plan is really going to affect whether or not it will come to a vote bringing on the need to filibuster.

I think what is more important to the overall strength and growth of the Democratic Party is that guys like Conrad "play-it-safe", politically speaking, on some "hot-button" issues, as long as they vote correctly, of course, should it come to that.  Conrad has rarely, if ever, disappointed his constituents in this regard.

At this time in North Dakota, with strong Republican candidates such as Gov. John Hoeven and former North Dakota Gov. Ed Schafer eyeing Conrad's Senate seat in 2006, it is important that Senator Conrad carefully walk that line.  It's not terribly likely that he's going to face a ridiculous character like Mike Liffrig the way Senator Dorgan did in this last election.

To this point, nothing that Senator Conrad has said or done, leads me to believe that his stance is anything other than against Bush's Social Security Policies.  If you read all of the press on him and this issue, there is no way he will ever vote for Privatization because of his deficit-hawk background.  Any way you look at it, Privatization requires a HUGE economic commitment that creates even more debt.  I can say with 100% certainty that there is no way Senator Conrad would vote for that and I'm pretty sure that the Republicans know this.  I mean, Conrad voted against the Iraq War for this very reason even though it wasn't necessarily in his best political interest.

The only way Senator Conrad would support the Privatization of Social Security is if they found a way to do it without adding a dime to the national debt, and let's face it, if the Republicans find a way to do that, Senator Conrad is going to be the least of Democrats' worries.

I'm not too scared about Senator Conrad and I don't think anyone else should be either.

                                                   --originally posted on DailyKos, Sat. March 5, 2005

by leifolson on Sat Mar 05, 2005 at 04:27:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]


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.