Hoping to flush out Republicans on a divisive campaign issue, the House Democrats today plan to launch a petition to discharge Social Security legislation that is bottled up in the Ways and Means Committee.
The Democrats hope to force Republicans to vote on GOP proposals for Social Security reform. They also seek floor action on proposals made by the president’s Commission to Strengthen Social Security.
 |
|
PATRICK G. RYAN
|
| Rep. Robert Matsui (D-Calif.) |
|
|
Customarily, discharge petitions are brought in support of legislation sought by the sponsors. In this case, however, the Democrats oppose the proposals made by both the Republicans and the commission. The Democrats’ motive is clearly to embarrass both the White House and House Republicans.
After their weekly caucus meeting this morning, the Democrats will hold a press conference to announce the petition and then march en masse to the Clerk’s Desk on the House floor to sign it. The discharge requires 218 signatures to bring a measure to the House floor for a vote.
“We think it’s important we debate this issue. This isn’t about the election as much as it’s about Social Security,” said ranking member on the Ways and Means Subcommittee on Social Security Robert Matsui (D-Calif.).
But Republicans think that the discharge petition is about nothing but politics. Last month, in another effort to embarrass the Republicans, the Democrats proposed a rule that would establish a debate on six Social Security bills based on the commission’s proposals. The bills are sponsored by Minority Leader Richard Gephardt (D-Mo.) and Matsui.
The petition also seeks to unshackle bills sponsored by House Majority Leader Richard Armey (R-Texas), Rep. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) and Social Security Subcommittee Chairman Clay Shaw (R-Fla.). Democrats say the bills would privatize Social Security.
Shaw refuted that claim.
“How can they say it’s privatizing when I don’t touch the existing system? I leave it alone,” Shaw said.
In his bill, Shaw calls for the maintenance of the current Social Security structure and the creation of personal accounts, wherein taxpayers invest a portion of their paycheck in the stock market.
Shaw dismissed the Democrats discharge efforts as politicking.
“It shines the spotlight on the fact that Democrats have no program of their own,” he said. “If the Democrats have a plan I’ll have a hearing on that. I’ll study it. And, by God, if it’s better than mine, I’ll cosponsor it.”
“If you have a plan and you are confident in your plan, why not bring it up for a vote?” Matsui said. “If it’s that wonderful, let’s debate it.”
In response, Shaw said he does not want to hold a hearing on his bill until the politically charged atmosphere over Social Security dies down.
But, the GOP should not be afraid of talking about Social Security, he explained. “Republicans are afraid of the issue, and that’s the problem. I think the Republicans should campaign on it,” Shaw said.
Shaw and his congressional GOP colleagues aren’t the only ones critical of the Democrats’ use of the word privatization to describe Republican and commission proposals.
“I think the main problem is that it’s a problem of accuracy. Most of the proposals in the mix involve saving Social Security contributions in personal accounts within the Social Security system,” said Chuck Blahous, executive director of the president’s commission. “There’s nothing about that that is really” privatized.
The commission recommended a year of discussion and debate on its proposals before any legislative action should be taken.
“It is and remains their view that substantive, detailed discussion is an important counterweight to tendencies to treat Social Security as a sound bite or as a political weapon,” Blahous said.
Damon Ansell, a spokesman for Americans for Tax Reform, a conservative advocacy group, said he supports efforts to get a debate on the issue before the November elections.
“I think the party who is willing to do something about this issue is the party that is going to be rewarded [come election night],” he said.