Brooks says "Let Congress Lead"- as Reid/Baucus plan to screw SS/aged?

[papau]

Is Roll Call's Pierce correct that Reid (D-NV) has Baucus (D-MT) doing the lead negotiation on Social Security, and that we should anticipate Reid/Baucus screwing the aged and the left by pissing on the Democratic Caucus line, and "reaching across the aisle"?


http://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/08/opinion/8brooks.html

January 8, 2005
OP-ED COLUMNIST
Let Congress Lead
By DAVID BROOKS

Here are five observations about the politics of Social Security reform:

First, many Republicans will be loathe to back a bill that has no Democratic support. They don't want to transform a big, popular program without bipartisan cover.

Second, it will be hard to get Democratic votes for a bill that includes personal accounts. Democrats oppose them for the same reason that Republicans support them: because they think the accounts will create Republicans. People who have them will start thinking like investors.

Third, any compromises that win you Democratic votes in the Senate, lose you Republican votes in the House. For example, if Senate Republicans raise the payroll tax caps, they might get some Democrats. But they will lose House Republicans by the dozens. This is the cruel logic we are going to come across again and again this Congress. Changes that build majorities in one house destroy majorities in the other.

Fourth, even if Republicans try to go it alone, they probably will not agree among themselves. If the White House comes out with a bill that cuts benefits, the Democrats won't have to go into opposition. Newt Gingrich, Jack Kemp and Steve Forbes will already be there. On the other hand, if there are no benefit cuts, the financial markets may go ballistic. Paul Ryan of Wisconsin is working on a Third Way approach to please both sides. If he can do it, he's a magician.

Fifth, the administration is doing a poor job of communicating with members. Republicans, except at the top, feel isolated. They doubt that John Snow or anybody else in the administration has enough skill and authority to guide this through Congress. <snip>

[Goldeneye]

1. This WP article made me feel a little better....

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?node=admin/registration/register&destination=register&nextstep=gather&application=reg30-politics&applicationURL=http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A61686-2005Jan9.html

It sounds like the dems might be pulling together.

[Cocoa]

2. info on Reid/Baucus?

it's not in that awful Brooks column.

Who is Pierce, and what does he say about Reid and Baucus?

[papau]

3. Pierce is Emily - a writer for Roll Call - which is a click after you pay

web site.

So it is either buy the subscription - or google for a cached copy tomorrow!

:-)

Emily's article reports Reid gave Baucus the lead role on Social Security negociations. And Baucus has not been all that firm on any topic of interest to the left.

[DaedelusNemo]

4. Must protest vigourously to

This point:

"Second, it will be hard to get Democratic votes for a bill that includes personal accounts. Democrats oppose them for the same reason that Republicans support them: because they think the accounts will create Republicans. People who have them will start thinking like investors."

That puts far too favorable a spin on republicans and far too unfavorable a spin on democrats. Those 'personal' accounts ARE NOT PERSONAL. They are to be invested by the government until they are handed over to a gov't-approved manager. This is not 'you' getting to invest 'your money'.

It is corporatizing SS, not privatizing it.