Democrat Jim Cooper is focused on the federal government’s swelling financial obligations. Photo: John Shinkle
Posted on 06/13/2008 3:27:16 AM PDT by Libloather
Blue Dogs look beyond '08 election
By PATRICK O'CONNOR | 6/11/08 4:50 AM EST
Democrat Jim Cooper is focused on the federal government’s swelling financial obligations. Photo: John Shinkle
Rep. Jim Cooper never misses a chance to talk about the federal government’s swelling financial obligations. But the Tennessee Democrat clams up when asked about a conversation he had on the topic with his party’s likely presidential nominee, Illinois Sen. Barack Obama.
“I’ll let his campaign speak to his position on this issue,” Cooper says.
Cooper’s silence is understandable: Although the party that takes power next year will have to address deficit reduction and entitlement reform, those issues — especially when they involve painful changes to Social Security and Medicare — are too hot to touch during a presidential election campaign.
Instead, Democrats and Republicans on Capitol Hill are positioning themselves — quietly — to deal with the difficult choices after the election is over.
At the request of fiscally conservative Blue Dog Democrats, House Budget Committee Chairman John M. Spratt Jr. (D-S.C.) will convene a hearing later this month to address some of the entitlement questions.
At the centerpiece of that hearing will be a proposal, authored by Cooper and Republican Rep. Frank R. Wolf of Virginia, that would kick entitlement reform to a bipartisan commission like the one that has handled military base closings. The Cooper-Wolf panel would spend a year studying the nation’s fiscal concerns before presenting Congress with a legislative package which it would be forced to vote on in its entirety.
Other members, including Senate Budget Committee Chairman Kent Conrad (D-N.D.) and ranking Republican Judd Gregg (R-N.H.), have proposed similar commissions with more member involvement. Some lawmakers, including House Majority Leader Steny H. Hoyer (D-Md.), say a bipartisan approach is the best way — maybe the only way — to give members the political cover they need to overhaul these massive federal programs.
“This is the only way to solve the problem,” Wolf said.
The veteran Republican boiled over during a brief discussion about the mounting costs of these programs, scribbling pie charts on the back of a stray bill to demonstrate how the costs of Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security are eating up a greater percentage of the federal budget each year. Wolf and others have grown increasingly frustrated with the partisan politics that have plagued previous reform efforts.
“We’re waiting for Godot,” Wolf said.
But other members say Congress has to keep trying to come up with its own solutions.
“These are monumental decisions,” Spratt said. “They shouldn’t be made in a black and white manner. I don’t think members would be happy with outsider recommendations.”
His GOP counterpart on the Budget panel, Wisconsin Rep. Paul Ryan, agrees.
“I just want to do it,” Ryan said. “I’m only interested in actually doing my job.”
To that end, Ryan, an outspoken conservative who has become an increasingly influential voice inside his party, unveiled “A Roadmap for America’s Future,” a comprehensive 391-page bill that lays out his proposals to overhaul Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security. For good measure, it also revamps the tax code, creates new budgetary restrictions on Congress and includes Democratic priorities such as means testing for Medicare and Social Security and an improved safety net for low-income Americans.
Ryan plans to spend the rest of the year reaching out to colleagues on both sides of the aisle. He has already spoken to his conservative colleagues in the Republican Study Committee and party moderates in the Tuesday Group. And he has requested meetings with the Blue Dogs, the Congressional Black Caucus and other Democratic groups.
He even gave copies of his proposal to Obama’s and Hillary Rodham Clinton’s presidential campaigns.
“I’m trying to jump in the pool first to get everyone else to come in and go swimming with me,” Ryan said.
Conrad says that the national debt is “going up like a scalded cat” and that the presidential candidates are going to have to be a part of the conversation about it.
But the process and the politics involved in overhauling any of the entitlement programs remain dicey, particularly for Democrats.
Some lawmakers, including Spratt, favor a piecemeal approach that calls for Congress to reform one program at a time. Under that model, Congress overhauls Social Security, for example, and then moves on to Medicare or the health care system. Others, like Conrad and Ryan, favor a more comprehensive approach in which Congress tackles a major overhaul.
Many of the members who favor a comprehensive approach believe the easiest way to tackle the task would be to couple any changes to these federal entitlement programs with an extension of some of the president’s tax cuts before they expire in 2010. That could give both sides revenue to work with.
But congressional leaders, including the chairmen with direct jurisdiction over these agencies, have not given many signals about which direction they prefer.
In the House, a natural divide separates the liberal wing of the Democratic Party from a small but growing band of fiscal conservatives. These Blue Dogs have created headaches for their leaders on immigration and spending issues since Democrats regained power in 2006. Most recently, the group threatened to block consideration of a measure increasing college aid for veterans of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan unless party leaders offset its $52 billion price tag over the next 10 years. These lawmakers are also driving the discussion on entitlement reform, and they are adamant that the next administration must not create new programs without offsetting those costs.
The influence of these fiscal conservatives grows inside the party each time Democrats pick up a seat in a historically Republican district — and they can claim three already this year.
But the biggest concern remains the presidential election. President Bush barely mentioned Social Security reform in the run-up to his reelection in 2004, but it was the hallmark proposal — and one of the signature failures — of his second term.
Both Obama and Arizona Sen. John McCain have detailed plans to address each of these issues. The presidential hopefuls offer a lengthy roster of specific remedies to the federal agencies that make up these entitlement programs. They also offer plenty of broader bromides about “protecting seniors” and providing “access to health care for every American.” That includes a measure to overhaul the country’s health care system.
But neither candidate deals with these overhauls in terms of the expected budgetary shortfalls they could create. And the two nominees-in-waiting haven’t exactly dwelled on those proposals, either — and neither have the media.
Cooper, a longtime Obama supporter, said he discussed his commission idea with the Illinois senator after a campaign event earlier this year. He wouldn’t describe Obama’s response, but he did issue a stark challenge for his party — which could include the next president of the United States — about the tough choices ahead.
“At some point, you have to govern,” Cooper said. “We can’t keep on promising candy to everyone. To have a balanced diet, you also have to have meat, vegetables and fruit.”
They could go with a phase out type of plan. Keeping the old, worn out, broke system would remain for those who volunteer to stay on. Others can opt out and have that loot go into a personal account.
I believe Bubba was the first to say it should be privatized when he was running for his first term. But the fund is a pot to dip into EVERY YEAR...It is always broke...
Ah, Jim Cooper, my Congressman, forever rarely seen or heard (unless it has to do with shilling for the false Messiah). He manages to unite both liberals and Conservatives in Nashville... neither likes him here.
phonies. They won’t even break ranks with Pelosi to sign discharge petition on killing revival of fairness doctrine according to Mike Pence on Hannity yesterday
My Mom contributed to SS for over 45 years and retired when she was 66. Eleven months later she died...she never had the chance to enjoy her retirement. And where did all her SS money go? Probably into some politician's freezer. I'd love to have the opportunity to have all the money I've put into my SS account and let me manage it. But, people are just too damn lazy...they want Big Brother to do everything for them. Absolutely stupid.
I was just wondering yesterday if, Congressman John Tanner was still alive. How he keeps getting elected in a high military population is beyond me.
Actually, no one ever opposes him.
When I see the “blue rats” openly backing barack mcgovern, I’ll believe it.
The rodents maintain their majorities in our state through gerrymandering, plain and simple. We should have a 7-2 GOP Congressional majority in TN, not a paltry 4.
They could go with a phase out type of plan. Keeping the old, worn out, broke system would remain for those who volunteer to stay on. Others can opt out and have that loot go into a personal account.
There is no money to go into an account. I would say that people who do not want SS should opt out, but with no financial benefit because that money is spent already.
The great irony here being that the few remaining conservative Democrats will probably accomplish more in the way of reforming social security than the Republican majority ever did.
“phonies. They won’t even break ranks with Pelosi to sign discharge petition on killing revival of fairness doctrine according to Mike Pence on Hannity yesterday.”
No. They simply pick their battles. The former GOP majority had every opportunity to pass a permanent ban on the fairness doctrine while they were in power. Yet they didn’t. In much the sme way that they didn’t secure our borders, in much the same way they didn’t balance the budget, in much the same way they didn’t reform social security, and in much the same way they didn’t act to eliminate earmarks.
It would appear that the GOP expects conservative Democrats to do the jobs they just won’t do.
It has nothing to do with being lazy. SS is a Ponzi scheme. It is mandatory. Contributions belong to the USG, not the individual. It is a pay as you go system. It is also structurally unsound. In 1950 there were 16 workers to every retiree, today there 3.3, and in 2030 there will be two.
revival of fairness doctrine
was it an issue pre-’06 ?
SS is a pay as you go system. In 2017, SS will be paying out more than it is taking in, which will require the USG to start paying on the IOU’s in the SS Trust Fund from the General Fund. Taxes will have to be raised and/or benefits reduced. When this happened in 1983, the solution was to raise taxes and reduce benefits, including changing the age for full retirement benefits from 65 to 67.
I remember the last time SS reform was attempted, the AARP organized a nation wide campain against it while Air Ameirca’s Randi Rhodes made over the air death threats against Bush.
Yep, I understand this. What I'm saying is that we need to take it away from the USG. Milton Friedman once suggested that we make SS voluntary. He also pointed out, however, that if you opted out of SS, you had to sign a pledge that you'd never become a ward of the State and that you could never make any claim against the State (e.g., SS, welfare, unemployment comp or disability, etc.)
Perhaps a better way to fix the SS problems is to take away the current congressional retirement plans and make them use SS like the rest of us.
I am in favor of privatizing the system with a small defined benefit program to cover survivors and disabilities. If you made SS voluntary, it couldn't survive. It is a pay as you go system. Reducing revenue will leave less money to pay retirees. By 2030 we will double the number of retires to over 70 million. Making the system voluntary would require a huge amount of money to transition it and those remaining could not support the existing and growing number of retirees.
He also pointed out, however, that if you opted out of SS, you had to sign a pledge that you'd never become a ward of the State and that you could never make any claim against the State (e.g., SS, welfare, unemployment comp or disability, etc
I doubt such a pledge would hold water legally. And what would we do with such people? Let them and their widows starve in the streets?
Perhaps a better way to fix the SS problems is to take away the current congressional retirement plans and make them use SS like the rest of us.
Since 1983 all new federal employees, including Congressmen, must join SS. It was part of the April 20, 1983 P.L. 98-21, (H.R. 1900)
“revival of fairness doctrine. was it an issue pre-’06 ?”
Yes. It was an issue under Bill Clinton. Attempts to re-implement it were made in the early 90’s. The so-called Fairness Doctrine has been an issue in some form or the other since the 1920’s.
Rather than solve the problem for once and for all, the GOP has preferred to keep the issue around as a red herring to rally the troops. There is also the underlying issue: the GOP hates talk radio almost as much as the Democrats do.
You're assuming it would be administered as it is now. If it were voluntary, it would have to compete with the private sector, which it couldn't. The new SS program would have to be honest and say you only get back what you pay in, at most. And if you die before your account runs dry, we get what's left. Given that choice, SS would die under its own weight, and that's not a bad thing.
I doubt such a pledge would hold water legally. And what would we do with such people? Let them and their widows starve in the streets?
I'm the wrong person to ask, because I would say "Yes"...you made a pledge, now stand up to what you promised to do. I'm no lawyer, but I would guess that contract law has required people to do things they would have preferred not to do, so I don't see why this would be any different.
Since 1983 all new federal employees, including Congressmen, must join SS. It was part of the April 20, 1983 P.L. 98-21, (H.R. 1900)
Really? I have several friends who work for the federal gov't and they say they don't pay SS taxes. Also, my comment was to take away current congressional pensions and make them use SS only.
If that were the case, then where would you get the revenue to pay for the $500 billion now being paid to SS retirees today and the baby boomers who are now retiring each day in record numbers? By 2030 we will be paying out more than a trillion dollars annually to retirees.
The new SS program would have to be honest and say you only get back what you pay in, at most. And if you die before your account runs dry, we get what's left. Given that choice, SS would die under its own weight, and that's not a bad thing..
Totally unrealistic. It would never fly politically. The best way to shift from SS to personal accounts is to phase it in by age groups, i.e., beginning with the youngest. We would do it in much the same way that it has been done in more than 35 other countries including the UK and Chile.
Really? I have several friends who work for the federal gov't and they say they don't pay SS taxes.
I worked for the USG for 36 years and am currently retired. I gave you the link to the law that made it mandatory for all new federal employees to join SS beginning in 1983. At that time, existing federal employees were given the choice of joining the new system or staying in the old one. Some of your friends must have been on the rolls prior to 1983. Anyone hired by the USG from 1983 onwards must pay into SS. Federal employees can also pay into a civil service pension system and into the Thrift Plan.
Also, my comment was to take away current congressional pensions and make them use SS only.
Good luck. Would you also mandate that federal employees have SS only?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.