Wampum

Time To Play Offense

Before the President’s State of the Union speech, Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid announced that all Senate Democrats oppose the privatization of Social Security:

Not a single Senate Democrat will support President Bush’s proposal to divert a portion of the Social Security payroll tax to personal investment accounts, Minority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., said Tuesday….

Reid said he had private commitments from all 44 Senate Democrats that they would not support diverting payroll tax revenues into private accounts, the key facet of Bush’s plan. The Democratic staff on the Senate Finance Committee has come to the same conclusion, based on polling Democratic members and their staffs.

If, like Atrios, one assumes that there is no way to get a Social Security bill into a budget bill (which, under Senate Rules, would not be subject to a filibuster), then the President’s private account plan will not be enacted into law.

It would be better, of course, to defeat the proposal outright without the need to filibuster it. What is the outlook for a majority against private accounts in the Senate?

Josh Marshall is the go to guy on this issue and much of the following was suggested by his writing.

For Democrats to defeat private accounts without a filibuster, they would need to retain all of their votes (Reid says they will), plus Jim Jeffords of Vermont (a sure bet) and peel away six Republican Senators. Where might opponents of private accounts find six Republican allies in the Senate?

Two Republicans, Olympia Snowe of Maine and Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania have already announced their opposition to private accounts. Snowe has been reasonably clear in her position:

Raising broad objections to the substance and presentation of the White House case, Snowe made it clear she is not convinced that a Social Security crisis has arrived, as Bush maintains. Snowe said there are "various scenarios and interpretations about that urgency." …

Snowe said she is "certainly not going to support diverting $2 trillion from Social Security into creating personal savings accounts."

Arlen Specter has been sending an email to constituents that says the following:

On the issue of privatization, I had some time ago considered an idea to place a relatively small portion of benefits in an investment account, providing that the “security” aspect of Social Security was retained and the investment was under professional management. However, with the severe fluctuations of the stock market, I have since rejected that idea.

Snowe and Specter bring the total in opposition to private accounts to 47.

Lincoln Chaffee of Rhode Island will likely make it 48. I cannot find a media reference to Chaffee’s position on private accounts. Nonetheless, I consider it likely that he will oppose such legislation. A letter to the editor in a Rhode Island paper makes reference to a December 8, 2004 AP story in which Chaffee allegedly expressed “discomfort” with the President’s plan. In addition, Chaffee is up for reelection in a dark blue state. Marshall says Chaffee is “almost sure to defect.” I agree.

Even if those three Senators abandon the President on private accounts, three more defections are needed to have a majority in opposition. Who might those three be? Here are some possibilities:

Mike DeWine of Ohio

DeWine is up for reelction in 2006. Ohio has an above-average number of seniors. DeWine has said that he is not convinced that personal savings accounts are the way to go. He is also looking for bipartisan cover that he seems unlikely to get:

"We cannot pass a Social Security bill unless it is a bipartisan bill," said Mike DeWine. "We have to have both parties, Republicans and Democrats, to come forward and begin the debate."

John Warner of Virginia

Josh Marshall quotes from a Washington Post article:

Several Republicans expressed skepticism about the White House's hopes for swift passage. Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman John Warner (R-Va.) said Social Security legislation will take some time, "and it should -- it really should." He said he might ask the nonpartisan Government Accountability Office, the investigative arm of Congress, to prepare "a definitive analysis on the history of the program, the goals of the program."

"We don't have at this point what I call an unbiased, analytical piece that the average Joe can pick up and say 'What is all this that the politicians are arguing about?' " he said.

In addition, there is this report from the Richmond Times-Dispatch:

Sen. John W. Warner, R-Va., chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, commended Bush for pushing for reform but reserved judgment until he sees a detailed proposal. He and other Virginia lawmakers were interviewed before new details of proposed personal accounts began surfacing late last week.

Warner mentioned his general respect for AARP, the seniors' group, and his interest in its strong opposition to some of Bush's goals. And he disclosed that he has asked the Government Accountability Office to update its analysis of Social Security overhaul models laid out by Bush's Commission on Social Security in 2001.

"Having an updated independent, nonpartisan analysis of potential reform proposals would help the Congress and the American people assemble as many facts as possible as we begin this important debate," Warner wrote the GAO in a letter dated Thursday.

That does not sound like he is on board with the President yet. Nothing is more dangerous to the President’s proposal than having legislators and the American pubic to be exposed to “independent, non-partisan” facts.

Gordon Smith Of Oregon

At a recent joint Town Hall appearance with Democrat Ron Wyden, Smith seemed to be looking for bipartisan cover in order to support private accounts:

I’ve taken no position on private accounts. I’m open to the debate, not because there’s any political upside to it, but because we have to find a way to make this program and keep this promise for our generation, yours and mine, in a way that will be meaningful to our children and our grandchildren. And so, without any foreordain conclusion, I am open to the debate. I think it’s a good debate, we need to have it, but before it ever comes to any kind of resolution, it’s gonna take a program that a guy like Ron Wyden and a guy like Gordon Smith can agree to vote for because its gonna take that…that’s the way our system is set up...

If Harry Reid is right, Ron Wyden will not be voting for private accounts and Gordon Smith will not be getting his cover.

George Voinovich of Ohio

Voinovich is a deficit hawk. He may balk at a proposal that will add $4.5 trillion of new debt over the next twenty years.

Like DeWine, Voinovich has said that he is not sure personal accounts are the best way to shore up Social Security. That concern was probably heightened by the White House admission that private accounts will not help solve Social Security’s fiscal problems.

Voinovich is also looking for a bipartisan bill:

Sen. George Voinovich, R-Ohio, said it would be a mistake for Bush to insist on any particular solution, whether private accounts or anything else.

"I'm for putting the issue of Social Security on the table and discussing it with our colleagues on the other side of the aisle," he said, adding that nothing will come out of Congress on this issue unless it's bipartisan.

Voinovich was asked if administration officials agreed with his view. "If they don't, he should," he said.

John McCain of Arizona
McCain does not seem too enthused about spending the political capital needed to ram private accounts through the Congress:

Referring to Bush's Social Security reforms, for instance, he said Tuesday, "I haven't seen his proposal." Is this something Bush should spend his political capital on? "That's his decision," McCain said. Is it a good one? "I'm concerned about immigration reform," McCain replied.

Chuck Hagel of Nebraska

Hagel has taken the bipartisanship position:

Finding a solution to Social Security's long-term problems, Hagel said, "is going to require some pain, not just talk. I would hope the administration is going to immediately reach out and find some common ground" with Democrats.

Recently, Hagel praised the President for taking on entitlement reforms but stopped short of endorsing private accounts:

"We are on a collision course with our entitlement programs, and we're going to have to deal with these straight up," Hagel said. "I think the president is exactly right in calling for reform."

Susan Collins of Maine
Collins want to delay having to make up her mind. Forbes reports:

Some Senate Republicans also have doubts. Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, said Thursday there is no consensus for action now and said she has not made up her own mind. "We should take this year to study the issue and come up with solutions," she said.

There is simply no way that Bush can get private accounts through in an election year. Delaying the issue is akin to killing it.

MSNBC reports that Collins was slow to applaud the President’s remarks about Social Security at the SOTU address.

Those ten Republican Senators, Snowe, Specter, Chaffee, DeWine, Warner, Voinovich, Smith, Collins, McCain, and Hagel, will determine whether or not Democrats need to resort to a filibuster to defeat private accounts in the Senate.

If 527s and other groups (AARP, for instance) plan to defeat the measure outright in the Senate, it would seem appropriate to focus on those Senators.

Update:

Via Josh Marshall, Montana's Conrad Burns does not seem to be completely onboard with the President's Social Security proposal, even after the President's visit to Montana:

Fellow Republicans U.S. Sen. Conrad Burns and Rep. Denny Rehberg, both of Montana, said after the speech they haven't made up their minds on Bush's ideas...

Burns said he's going to "continue to look at it," but had questions about how to pay for the plan.

The plan is unlikely to look better upon second viewing, Conrad. Add Burns to the list of maybes.

Posted by Dwight Meredith at February 3, 2005 09:11 PM | TrackBack