Social Security is next for "Gang of Fourteen"
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
May 31, 2024, 08:19:53 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Politics
  U.S. General Discussion (Moderators: The Dowager Mod, Chancellor Tanterterg)
  Social Security is next for "Gang of Fourteen"
« previous next »
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: Social Security is next for "Gang of Fourteen"  (Read 973 times)
Moooooo
nickshepDEM
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,909


Political Matrix
E: -0.52, S: 3.65

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: May 25, 2005, 10:58:04 AM »

From The Hill:

Some of the senators who banded together to forestall the “nuclear option” are eyeing a new goal: reforming Social Security.....

Yesterday, Graham clarified that Social Security reform was not broached during the negotiations that led to the deal that forestalled the “nuclear option.”

Nevertheless, he said, the 14-member coalition represents “the model for the future” of the Senate. The chance for the closely divided Senate “to do hard things is greater today than it was yesterday,” Graham said.
...
Sen. Mark Pryor (D-Ark.) characterized the Graham plan as a blend of the White House principles, including private accounts, with other features designed to entice Democrats to support it.

Pryor said that he has spoken to Graham about Social Security more than once outside of the judicial-nominees negotiations but that he is not ready to sign off on the South Carolina Republican’s approach.
...
Snowe and Sen. Joe Lieberman (D-Conn.) have been working together on developing a Social Security plan under the auspices of the Centrist Coalition....
Logged
MissCatholic
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,424


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: May 25, 2005, 11:31:19 AM »

This could be the perfect opportunity to start a third party. i would vote for them.
Logged
A18
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 23,794
Political Matrix
E: 9.23, S: -6.35

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: May 25, 2005, 11:34:36 AM »

If the way he intends to entice Democrats is tax hikes, it's not going to happen.
Logged
Joe Republic
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 40,159
Ukraine


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: May 25, 2005, 11:41:25 AM »

This could be the perfect opportunity to start a third party. i would vote for them.

I don't think it's a 'perfect opportunity', and I also don't think it's too likely.  However, I would LOVE a third party to emerge from within the Senate.
Logged
Palefire
Rookie
**
Posts: 234


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: May 25, 2005, 11:44:51 AM »

This could be the perfect opportunity to start a third party. i would vote for them.

I don't think it's a 'perfect opportunity', and I also don't think it's too likely.  However, I would LOVE a third party to emerge from within the Senate.

agree and agree.
Logged
KEmperor
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,454
United States


Political Matrix
E: 8.00, S: -0.05

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: May 25, 2005, 04:06:52 PM »

Well, at least things are getting done.  I will have to see what they come up with though.
Logged
A18
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 23,794
Political Matrix
E: 9.23, S: -6.35

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: May 25, 2005, 04:59:07 PM »

We should go nuclear on both legislation and presidential appointments
Logged
○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└
jfern
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 53,870


Political Matrix
E: -7.38, S: -8.36

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: May 25, 2005, 05:04:53 PM »

This could be the perfect opportunity to start a third party. i would vote for them.

That wouldn't happen. There are 48 crazy Republican Senators.
Logged
A18
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 23,794
Political Matrix
E: 9.23, S: -6.35

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: May 25, 2005, 05:07:13 PM »

All we need is 2 of those GOP "centrists" to get pissed off over any appointment being blocked and go nuclear. Appoint only originalists to the Supreme Court, and they'll have to cave or get nuked.
Logged
WilliamSeward
sepoy1857
Rookie
**
Posts: 117


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: May 25, 2005, 05:09:40 PM »

GO gang of 14!
Logged
A18
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 23,794
Political Matrix
E: 9.23, S: -6.35

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: May 25, 2005, 05:20:47 PM »

http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=8210

Not to belabor the obvious, but chances are very slim that Social Security reform will happen this year. While there are many reasons, they all boil down to one basic fact: there are not enough votes in the U.S. Senate to overcome a filibuster. So what should President Bush do?

The simple answer is keep the process going forward. Continue pushing Social Security reform in both the press and in stops around the nation. Prepare to make it an issue in the 2006 election. And ensure that legislation advances in Congress.

It is this last step that is crucial, for it will shape how Bush can use the issue in next year's election. Most importantly, he must make certain that reform legislation passes the House. This cannot be emphasized enough. A loss in the House and Bush will appear as though he no longer has any clout, even over his own party. It will reinforce all the media stories about GOP legislators "running scared" from Social Security reform. In turn, Bush will have an even harder time getting his reform message out. The media will hardly cover it other than to note, "Bush's plan seems dead after the House, controlled by his own party, voted it down." Thus, it is imperative that the White House round up 218 votes in the House.

Bush can take steps toward that goal now. The House Ways and Means Committee has two hearings scheduled on Social Security reform this week, while the Senate has one. Bush should talk up these hearings with reporters and make it part of the next weekly radio address. In particular, Bush should mention some of the ideas coming out of the hearing that he liked, and how pleased he is that Congress is making progress on this issue. Never too soon to grease the wheels.

A second reason Bush must prevail in the House is that if he does not, he will have no message to carry to the voters in 2006. The message that he wants is, "We can have Social Security reform; all that is standing in the way are the Democratic obstructionists in the Senate." Tying the blockage of Social Security reform to Democratic obstructionism is essential if Bush wants to turn this issue to the GOP's advantage.

The Democrats' obstructionist tactics are unpopular with the public. A recent Wall Street Journal/NBC poll revealed that by 38 to 30 percent respondents opposed the Democrats' efforts to thwart President Bush's judicial nominees. Voters showed their displeasure with such tactics last fall by giving Tom Daschle a new job as a lobbyist.

Bush must ensure that reform legislation lands in the Senate where the Democrats are sure to block it. When that happens, Bush can use the obstructionist charge against Democrats in the next election. He can neutralize the advantage that Democrats currently enjoy in the polls on Social Security, and give the GOP more confidence as it moves into 2006. It might even help him pick up Senate seats in Florida, Michigan, and Nebraska, bringing the GOP total in the Senate to 58 and thus very close to what is needed to break a filibuster.

Bush may not be able to salvage Social Security reform this year. However, he can turn it into a winner in the 2006 elections, thereby improving its chances in the future. The first step in achieving that is getting reform through the House.
Logged
Blue Rectangle
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,683


Political Matrix
E: 8.50, S: -0.62

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #11 on: May 25, 2005, 05:42:31 PM »

The Social Security situation is very different from the filibuster fight.  In the filibuster fight, the Democrats could continue with 40+ votes, which they have.  The Republicans could get what they wanted with 50+ votes, which they also had.  The Gang of 14 worked not by creating a majority (which would have required joining forces with one of the parties), but by denying votes to both parties.  The Social Security situation is completely different: for any reform to occur, a majority must be formed--but this is the opposite of what happened in the filibuster fight.
Logged
Pages: [1]  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.234 seconds with 10 queries.