Doing a Deal on Social Security

— By Kevin Drum

| Mon Jan. 3, 2011 11:35 AM PST

Digby reposts a summary today of last year's "Fiscal Responsibility Summit," in which Gene Sperling — now a top contender to replace Larry Summers as head of the NEC — said the Obama administration was interested in cutting a deal on Social Security, and warns against taking the bait:

I know I've posted that too often and regular readers are sick of it. But it's terribly important, I think, to understand that the rationale for liberals in this thing is that they are doing a good thing for the program, taking it "off the table" for the next 50 years and "making it sound." Now, I don't know if they really believe it, but it doesn't matter. What matters is that in the current environment whatever changes they come up with will come at the expense of the elderly because there will be no deal that requires tax hikes.

Atrios agrees:

I don't know why some liberals think that there is some deal, good or bad, which can somehow take the Social Security issue off the table until the end of time. As Ben Bernanke said, that's where the money is and they'll be trying to steal it in perpetuity. Cutting granny's benefits a bit won't change that.

I just don't think this is true. It's possible that Republicans will never agree to a Social Security deal that increases taxes, but keep in mind that Republicans are mainly obsessed with taxes on the wealthy. A small increase in payroll taxes and/or an increase in the payroll tax cap wouldn't affect the millionaire class much and might get a fair amount of GOP support. In any case, the only way to find out is to try. If they won't do the deal, then they won't do the deal.

But assume that a deal is possible. If it is, I think it's wrong to insist that it will come solely at the expense of the elderly, or that it won't do any good because Social Security will never be off the table anyway. On the first point, it's quite possible to structure a deal that requires nothing more than a very modest slowdown in the the future increase of benefit levels that (a) affects only those with fairly high incomes and (b) phases in over a period of decades. That's hardly Armageddon. On the second point, sure, Republicans will probably go after Social Security forever. But that's not what matters. What matters is that if the program is officially in balance then Republicans no longer have the traction to succeed. Benefit cuts are unpopular, after all, and conservatives by themselves don't have either the desire or the ability to buck the public on this unless they also have the support of the Washington Post/Pete Peterson Beltway elite. And they won't have that once the program is officially solvent. A deal on Social Security kicks the legs out of the centrist support they need in order to have any chance of reducing benefits in the future.

Now, again: maybe a deal isn't possible. There's only one way to find out. But if a deal ispossible, it really would take Social Security off the table for a very long time. That would be good for the elderly, good for the country, and good for the liberal project in general. If there's any chance of doing a bipartisan deal over the next two years, Democrats should be open to it.

Monday, January 03, 2011

 
The Good Liberal

by digby

I'll take Brad Delong's word for it that Gene Sperling really is a liberal and concur that in Woodward's book "The Agenda" he is portrayed as being the most liberal of the economic advisors.

But this worries me:

Both Summers and Sperling said there would not be consensus in today's session about how to fix the program. They also said the public was more receptive to the government making hard decisions necessary to keep SS from running out of money in the long run, because Americans are anxious about their private retirement savings and the value of their houses.

Sperling said: "I think there may be a lot more openness than we thought in the past for people to have an honest discussion about the shared sacrifice necessary to have Social Security solvency. That this would be a sure thing they could count on, and they could count on for the next 50 to 75 years."

At the end, Sperling also tried to cut through disagreement over whether the program was in a state of crisis. "I really hate the whole argument about, is this a crisis or is this not a crisis? Why do we not want to preempt a crisis. Why do we not want to do something early? It is a shame on our political system that there has never been entitlement reform without a gun to our head. . .Wouldn't it be a tremendous confidence-building thing to act early and smart?"

I know I've posted that too often and regular readers are sick of it. But it's terribly important, I think, to understand that the rationale for liberals in this thing is that they are doing a good thing for the program, taking it "off the table" for the next 50 years and "making it sound." Now, I don't know if they really believe it, but it doesn't matter. What matters is that in the current environment whatever changes they come up with will come at the expense of the elderly because there will be no deal that requires tax hikes.

I think there's ample reason to be skeptical of the administration's negotiating skills, so the Grand Bargain is very likely to be an agreement to sacrifice social security in exchange for the Republicans agreeing to sacrifice something they don't really care about. (See: tax cuts for the wealthy in exchange for unemployment insurance.) Huckleberry Graham already framed the deal as agreeing to raise the debt ceiling and cutting social security. Considering that raising the debt ceiling is normally a symbolic, pro forma vote (which the Tea People have helpfully turned into a "cause") you can see how easily the administration could get rolled in this. There has never been a more inauspicious moment to put social security on the table than now.

Let's hope Sperling is a bit more realistic about this today than he was two years ago when he made those comments. And let's hope he's not one of those liberals who has decided that the only way to influence the economy is by sending "signals" to a bunch of sociopathic Masters of the Universe who have demonstrated their myopia and incompetence over and over again. They are not going to save us.


.
digby 1/03/2011 10:00:00 AM