I'm Sorry Jim, But This Is Ridiculous

. (0.00 / 0)

I don't mind PAYGO, I think it's a fine idea -- so long as your the pay for what you want to do, and political fear of changing the tax rate doesn't change what's on your legislative program. After all, why pay a couple percent more for everything just because you felt like putting it on a layaway plan?

The real problem with PAYGO is that we've been conditioned to accept cowardice from our legislators and know that more likely than not they'll put things on the credit card that they won't just write a check for.

The thing that bothered me in the email was the casual linking of Social Security and Medicare. What in Social Security needs to be "addressed"? Please leave this program alone, thank you.

–7.25 / –7.28 | http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/tw...

---

by: mattw @ Thu Jun 18, 2009 at 12:25:42 PM UTC

mattw (4.00 / 3)

The fact that Jim Himes is using rightwing wingnut numbers in his Social Security numbers and is acting like a chickenshit bluedog instead of a progressive is.

When Jim Himes wanted  that seat he came to the progressives for support and got it.We should expect and demand he act like one and not put his tail between his legs and run right when one poll doesn't go our way.

---

by: ctkeith @ Thu Jun 18, 2009 at 14:06:18 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

pay as you go (0.00 / 0)

 time to stop calling out a group for asking "how are we gonna pay  for this?"

every worthy goal is not equal and if you can not buy the new stuff until you pay for the old stuff- that 's not bad thinking.

sure I'd like lots of things and some are pretty important. Pay later (pay more later) can't be sustained.

how much money can we print? and how many loans from China before they own us and we are broke and can do nothing about it?

pay for it or don't do it.  

---

by: retired yes @ Thu Jun 18, 2009 at 14:17:20 PM UTC

Pay as you go ... (4.00 / 2)

... is fine as long as you're willing to raise taxes on the wealthiest Americans to pay for what the country needs.

Otherwise you're undercutting all the infrastructure investment, school investment, green technology investment, etc., while short-circuiting the economic recovery.

It's also an odd statement for Himes to send out right after authorizing a war spending bill, and not long after arguing in favor of protecting the manufacture of the F-22, which the Pentagon says we no longer need.

But hey, it sounds goods to Republicans and moderates and low-income voters. Whether it makes any economic sense doesn't really matter, I guess.

---

by: CaptCT @ Thu Jun 18, 2009 at 14:49:01 PM UTC

meant to say low-information voters (0.00 / 0)

... not low-income voters

---

by: CaptCT @ Thu Jun 18, 2009 at 18:00:36 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Agreed (4.00 / 2)

I am surprised and disappointed that Congressman Himes would quote The Economist.  I stopped reading The Economist years ago when it ceased being a clear-headed, rational,unideological commentator on finance and economics, and morphed into an ideological conservative opinionator.

I am particularly disappointed in this:

"While we address the massive unfunded liabilities associated with Social Security and Medicare (now well in excess of $50 trillion)..."

Social Security and Medicare are the finest manifestations of Democratic progressive ideals that this country has ever produced.  Social Security virtually overnight reduced poverty among the elderly dramatically.  Dr. Dean, the former governor of Vermont, was just heard on public broadcasting this morning advocating permitting Americans to buy into Medicare.  As he explained it, why should the government invent another organization to handle the public health insurance option that both Congressman Himes and Barack Obama have promised us, when we already have the machinery in place.  Medicare is not a "massive unfunded liability".  If there is a problem with Medicare, it comes from the Bush/Republican action to permit private insurance companies to cherry-pick the healthiest seniors and to give those insurers government subsidies to do so, increasingly leaving sicker seniors on the government plan.  That needs to be reversed.  Not long ago, Taiwan searched the world for the best medical insurance system to adopt, and they selected Medicare.  Cutting  health insurance for seniors under the guise of "addressing a massive unfunded mandate" is wrong.  

And as Paul Krugman has pointed out, simply raising the top federal marginal income tax rate to the level it was under the Clinton administration would fix all future funding problems for Social Security.  Done.  

I for one will not support sticking it to seniors by cutting their Social Security payments, making them work years longer, and cutting their health insurance.  It doesn't matter to me whether those plans are attacked by Republicans or Democrats.  It's wrong.  Period.  

---

by: thomashooker @ Thu Jun 18, 2009 at 15:45:59 PM UTC

Himes (0.00 / 0)

 This post  by my old Law Professor  is  excellent....while  i figured Himes  would be somewhat  better  then Shays, I was  sorely disappointed  to see blue dog and republican quotes in his  pay as  you  go writings...then again  he is a former wall street guy and I suspect a corporatist

---

by: BruceRubenstein2 @ Thu Jun 18, 2009 at 17:13:19 PM UTC

Jane Hampsher give Himes a well deserved (0.00 / 0)

whack on the ass.

http://campaignsilo.firedoglak...

Whoever is writing Himes emails needs to apologize for this trash.

PS- I think McKinney would love it if Himes is stupid enough to touch the third rail.

---

by: ctkeith @ Thu Jun 18, 2009 at 18:18:49 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

My response (0.00 / 0)

I've followed this thread with interest.

I'm having trouble with two things: proportionality and logic.

With respect to proportionality, and by way of context, I've aggressively supported smart stimulus, health care reform with public option, credit card reform, enlightened energy policy, housing stabilization, education reform, etc. I've stood with Rep. Larson on campaign finance reform, and broken with my party when it has abnegated leadership on breaking the awful link between earmarks and campaign contributions.

This has been an 18 hour a day, hair-on-fire type pursuit. I don't say that to complain. A day does not go by that I don't feel honored to have been so entrusted. But that's where my energy has gone. An email raising some real fiscal issues/possible solutions leads to surprise, disappointment, implicit regret for support and a suggestion that I am "corporatist", whatever that is. No big deal-I've grown a pretty thick skin-but is it really proportionate?

Much more importantly, logic.  Medicare and Social Security have bettered the lives of hundreds of millions. They are integral to our being a just and enlightened society. They also, as currently configured, represent substantial unfunded liabilities. The present value of future Medicare and Social Security obligations are roughly $40 trillion and $8 trillion, respectively (sensitive to scenarios, of course). These are not contradictory facts. They can be, and are, all true at the same time.  In fact, the long term preservation of these programs depends on our acknowledging their glide paths and making the adjustments necessary to improve their economic sustainability. How we do that will and should be a political argument. But not acknowledging the need to do so is putting our heads in the sand.

I'm guessing that this has to do with packaging/framing. Round condemnation of my quoting the Economist. "Wing nut numbers". I wonder . . . Must an argument be wrong because it's articulated in a conservative source? Are numbers discredited because they have been used dishonestly by those who would dismantle Social Security? Is the need for fiscal restraint (at the economically appropriate moment) ridiculous just because the Republicans are using it as their current rallying cry? I don't think so.

---

by: Jim Himes @ Fri Jun 19, 2009 at 03:45:02 AM UTC

. (4.00 / 5)

One of the things that I've seen on blogs over the years is that it's always war time -- that there's always something to fight over, and fight about. We're the group for whom Dean was a more attractive candidate than Obama.

One of the things that bloggers are most proud of -- one of the most tangible outcomes of the agitation -- was the role that a coordinated effort to assert the fundamental soundness of the Social Security system played in derailing Bush's main second term project. Between January 2005 and Spring 2006, the privatization of Social Security went down in flames, our view of the Iraq War became the dominant narrative, and the failure in New Orleans confirmed the most critical assessments of conservative governance.

People feel like they established a beachhead with that stuff, and get defensive when "one of our own" appear to yield some of that turf. People here pursued Lieberman to the gates of hell for trying to give Bush his bi-partisan cover on privatization. So when you ask:

Are numbers discredited because they have been used dishonestly by those who would dismantle Social Security?

The answer is, probably for most of us, yes! It doesn't mean that the numbers can't be true, but it speaks to what you (or anyone) see as authoritative sources, what arguments are being lent credence in the halls of power. The Economist and Pete Peterson are in, The Nation and Amy Goodman are out.

That's obviously not the end of the world. But add in the variety of policy disappointments that people are starting to absorb, and the question stops being "how do we get Democrat #61 and 62 in the Senate," and starts being "were we wrong to believe that these candidates think as we do?" There would be no liberal blogging "movement" to speak of (nor would there be a President Obama today) if the Democratic Senate of 2002 didn't pass the Iraq War resolution, so a lot of us are poised to pounce at the appearance of a faithless Democrat.

So sure, the response isn't exactly proportional -- not to the message itself -- but when our candidates start preaching Economist and Social Security Crisis to us at a moment of pretty high political tension, it touches something a lot deeper and more institutionally-ingrained in the blogging community than you might think.  

–7.25 / –7.28 | http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/tw...

---

by: mattw @ Fri Jun 19, 2009 at 05:12:19 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

shorter me (4.00 / 1)

There are very good reasons why they call it "the third rail of politics", and I'm pretty sure we didn't elect an electricity-proof Congressman.

–7.25 / –7.28 | http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/tw...

---

by: mattw @ Fri Jun 19, 2009 at 15:14:21 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Pay-Go comes down to priorities... (4.00 / 3)

... what you're willing to pay for, and how you're willing to pay for it.

you say:

The present value of future Medicare and Social Security obligations are roughly $40 trillion and $8 trillion, respectively

Well, what's the net present value of war spending for the next 30 years? For instance, the defense budget is in excess of $500 Billion per year, which is higher than all other nations combined, including Russia and China! That's partly due to the fact that U.S. Congressmen such as yourself continue to protect antiquated war systems like the F-22. (Why not just give Pratt & Whitney an R&D grant to build something we actually need and that doesn't kill people?)

Timing matters too. Pay-Go is a neutral proposition. But during a recession, it can be disastrous. Deficit spending is what gets you out of a recession. Ask any economist.

But if you insist on Pay-Go, raising taxes on top earners would be the way to "Pay". Nobel Prize winning economists Joseph Stiglitz and Paul Krugman both have said that the raising taxes on the wealthy (those best able to weather the economic storm and whose tax increases would least impact consumer spending) is the best way to fund economic stimulus programs to jump-start the economy during a recession. FDR did it (increasing the top rate to 90%!). Would  raising taxes on top earners fit in with your Pay-Go strategy?

What about the TRillions the government spent on the financial bailout? Check out this graphic and see just how much this bailout cost. Maybe we should have insisted on pay-go PRIOR TO the bailout.

The middle class continues to bear the brunt of the economic meltdown. If you want to make Social Security and Medicare fiscally sound, try this to start:

- Cut the Pentagon budget, or at least stop spending on antiquated weapons systems.

- Significantly raise taxes on the wealthiest Americans -- and include capital gains and dividend income as part of total "income". Warren Buffet shouldn't pay a lower tax rate than his secretary -- even he admits as much.  

- Significantly increase stimulus-type investments: build mass transit, invest more in green technology, fix roads and bridges, schools, etc. to boost the economy, create jobs and increase GDP.

Please, understand that we really do appreciate your efforts on behalf of the public health care option and other progressive bills. We also understand the need for a lower national debt. But when you call Social Security and Medicare "unfunded liabilities" without putting the bailout and war funding in those same types of terms, the message comes across as grossly disingenuous.

You say:

the long term preservation of [Social Security and Medicare] depends on our acknowledging their glide paths and making the adjustments necessary to improve their economic sustainability. How we do that will and should be a political argument.

Consider this the beginning of that political argument. And we hope that you make some of the above arguments for us in Congress -- and in your letters to your constituents.

Thank you for opening up this dialogue here.  

---

by: CaptCT @ Fri Jun 19, 2009 at 14:44:21 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Jane Hamsher responds ... (4.00 / 1)

Hamsher writes at FDL:

Jim Himes bristles at the notion that he's a corporatist, or that his statistics come from wingnuts like Pete Peterson who cherry pick them for the purpose of dismantling Social Security:

... The present value of future Medicare and Social Security obligations are roughly $40 trillion and $8 trillion, respectively (sensitive to scenarios, of course). ...

"Sensitive to scenarios," of course. His "scenario" just happens to be the one drawn by Pete Peterson, a hedge fund billionaire who got rich because he didn't have to pay his taxes. Hedge fund managers are taxed at a rate of 15%, while ordinary Americans are taxed at 35%. Conservative estimates put lost annual revenue at $6 billion.

But as long as we're talking about facts, here's a couple. Social Security takes in more than it pays out by about $100 billion per year. That surplus is accumulated in the form of government bonds. When Himes talks about the "unfunded liabilities" of Social Security, he presumes the government is going to default on those bonds -- but he doesn't mention that. [...]

Why not say "projected out to the year 2075 even though Social Security presently takes in $100 billion more than it pays out, if and only if the government defaults on its promise to pay that money back?"

Because I'm sure we'd all like to know that a US congressman is projecting that the government plans to default on the $2.4 trillion in treasury bonds held by the Social Security trust fund while Pete Peterson still doesn't pay his taxes.

As Jon Kantrowitz said over at My Left Nutmeg, "I guess you are really worried about being re-elected. But this is not why I voted for you."

---

by: CaptCT @ Fri Jun 19, 2009 at 17:16:11 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Dear Jim (4.00 / 1)

After you read Jane Hampshers response below I suggest you walk over to Rosa's office and ask her to read your email and explain to you why some of us were outraged.

After she explains how hard we worked in the winter and spring of 2005 to demolish the FALSE idea that Social Security was in any fiscal danger and rips you a new one perhaps you'll get it.

PS- after she calms down ask her what she thinks about Grover Norquists idea of "making the federal Government big small enough to drown in a bathtub".

---

by: ctkeith @ Fri Jun 19, 2009 at 17:48:14 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I will give him credit for showing up... (0.00 / 0)

I've been following this from firedoglake and was pleasantly surprised that Rep. Himes chimed in on this thread. I don't agree with his analysis but I do think it's high time we did something about the debt and the budget deficit.

Unfortunately, cutting a sizeable chunk out of the largest sector of the budget (i.e. - defense) hasn't hit critical mass yet. Raising taxes on the rich (top 5-10% of incomes) and closing a ton of loopholes as well as getting rid of the Social Security cap would be an excellent start. Also, corporate taxes are waaaay too small of a sliver of what the IRS takes in every year. I'm not saying that we should soak large corporations but they need to start paying their fair share instead of shipping both our jobs and our tax revenues overseas.

As for the health care portion of this piece, we have to do meaningful health care reform that includes a public option. It's a necessary measure to help deflate both costs and the power of insurance companies that have taken advantage of Americans for far too long.

Finally, I can't get my rep to come anywhere near a blog and comment...it's nice to see even if I disagree with him.

---

by: Danno11 @ Fri Jun 19, 2009 at 18:16:28 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Just so you understand (0.00 / 0)

Just because we disagree doesn't mean will still don't love Mr Himes or that our support has softened.In my opinion he made a rookie mistake probably because too many folks in DC were in his ear saying this was the SAFE way to play the current circumstance.

As to Your Representatives coming to blogs I suggest that the reason Cts Representatives choose to is because although we can be pains in the asses at times we're also pretty big assets when election time comes around.

---

by: ctkeith @ Fri Jun 19, 2009 at 19:02:22 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

A TRAIN (0.00 / 0)

When a train is coming at you, you don't disregard the fact simply because someone alerted you and you disagree with them on many issues.

No matter how much we may want to provide certain level of services, if you can't pay for them, you can't have them. We are past the place where taxing 100% of the top earners will get the money spent!

I have heard sacrifice. I don't believe that includes bankrupting the United States. Never say never. If states are in this trouble and dumping the bills into the national arena, there is a tipping point.

Many are in denial and feel that as long as we vote to do something the money will be printed. That won't work much longer. No matter what team you play for, you don't burn down the stadium.

That train is coming at us faster than we realize, gaining speed. You have heard about being in a hole; Stop digging. (At least until you can see what else is happening!)  

---

by: retired yes @ Fri Jun 19, 2009 at 04:41:15 AM UTC

Illiberal attitude toward debate (0.00 / 0)

As far as I can tell, the sum of the complaints about our congressman are that he reads a "conservative" newspaper and that he expressed concern about the long-term strength of our social safety net.

As thomashooker pointed out, "simply raising the top federal marginal income tax rate to the level it was under the Clinton administration would fix all future funding problems for Social Security." This proposal makes the same assumption as Congressman Himes does: that there are "future funding problems" for Social Security. You said it yourself, quoting Krugman. That is nothing different than what Jim said. If you think that the congressman would be opposed to rolling back the Bush tax cuts, write his office and ask for his position on it. I don't think you would be disappointed.

As for the complaint that the congressman's email quoted a "conservative" newspaper: I would hope that your convictions are strong enough to withstand a thoughtful challenge from a publication you may frequently disagree with. There are political movements that refuse to consider arguments from "opposition newspapers," but I would think that American progressives wouldn't be a party to that kind of thought. If you disagree with the Economist's numbers, make the case for why their math is wrong. If you disagree with the congressman's argument, make the case for why his reasoning is faulty. But let's not refuse to listen to an argument because the person making it comes to different conclusions than we do on public policy.

As an aside, I think we ought to consider for a moment that we have a representative in Congress who took the time to thoughtfully and respectfully engage in a debate in a venue that too many of his colleagues dismiss and ignore.

---

by: OGDem @ Fri Jun 19, 2009 at 15:46:27 PM UTC

Jane's argument (0.00 / 0)

With all due respect to Jane, her analysis is wrong. Yes, Social Security currently takes in more than it pays out. But as our population ages, that is changing rapidly to a point where it is paying out substantially more than it takes in. If you look at my post, you will see I am talking about present value of future cash flows over time. That takes into account monies received and payed out, as it should. Since our demographic curve can't really change much over time (people collectively are born, age and die fairly predictably) the math's not that controversial.

In any event, the negative NPV of Social Security is an order of magnitude smaller than that of Medicare. So let's stipulate that my scenario is pessimistic. Let's cut the NPV in half to $20 trillion. That is still one heck of a problem to solve.

---

by: Jim Himes @ Fri Jun 19, 2009 at 19:18:58 PM UTC

Hey Jim, (0.00 / 0)

Let me tell you what I like.

It's that this is you here responding, and not some staffer.

Thanks for that.

this is a very important conversation, and I'm glad you're there in Congress, in the middle of the economic mess, doing your best to represent us and fix the country after the Bush disaster.

Keep Strong!

~Ed

---

by: AndersonScooper @ Fri Jun 19, 2009 at 20:00:29 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Social Security (4.00 / 1)

- The Social Security trustees issue three projections each year. Over the last 2 decades, the intermediate estimate has been quite pessimistic -- the optimistic projection has been dead on. The numbers used to produce the $50T figure have been shockingly incorrect.

- The optimistic scenario in the 2009 trustee report projects that after a 30-year decline in the trust fund ratio, the reserve will begin to build back up.

- All of the Social Security trustee projections assume that our lovely Congress will keep Bush's tax cuts forever. CBO, which assumes that the changes will sunset as they were designed to, finds that at its worst, the deficit in the trust fund will be 40% less than the trustee projection.

- Even if the historical track record of the trustees' projection doesn't bear out, and you guys don't let the Bush tax program expire, the trust fund would be brought into balance with either a 2% increase in the payroll tax or a 13% decrease in benefits (and there's already 2 years of no COLA due to the present economic situation).

- After all of that, it's Obama's stated intention to do away with the FICA cap, which would make up the shortfall of the intermediate trustee projection entirely.  

–7.25 / –7.28 | http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/tw...

---

by: mattw @ Fri Jun 19, 2009 at 20:37:33 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

oops (4.00 / 2)

Left out the link to the trustee report. here.

And... please leave Social Security alone. It does not need to be strapped to Medicare and "reformed." Medicare does have some serious issues, and we're counting on you guys to put together a healthcare reform program that gets costs under control -- as the trustees say:

"Medicare is a bigger challenge. Its cost growth can be contained without sacrificing quality of care only if health care cost growth more generally is contained. But despite the difficulties-indeed, because of the difficulties-it is essential that action be taken soon, particularly to control health care costs.

As it stands, you'd have to double the taxes or halve the benefits to make Medicare last through the next 75 years. So getting cost containment right is a tough problem that requires difficult choices (any of which will be unpalatable to some swath of your constituents), but that's the big X-factor in what it's going to cost to keep the program working as it should.

But for Social Security, there's no x-factor. It needs a bandaid, not surgery.  

–7.25 / –7.28 | http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/tw...

---

by: mattw @ Fri Jun 19, 2009 at 20:54:27 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Hi Jim (0.00 / 0)

Am I wrong in saying that your projections for 2075 (which I'm delighted to see have suddenly dropped another 28 trillion, we're certainly headed in the right direction) assume that the government will default on its obligations?

And what will the government's obligations to the Social Security trust fund be in 2075, since we're now projecting that far into the future?

---

by: jane hamsher @ Fri Jun 19, 2009 at 21:35:06 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

One more: why we worry (4.00 / 1)

The big signal that bloggers are reading as a cause to be on guard with respect to Social Security is the budget conference committee: as it turns out, 5 of the 8 conferees (including Kent Conrad and Allen Boyd (aka "The Only Pro-Privatization Democrat") favor rewriting the rules for Social Security, and Conrad's public comments have suggested that Social Security changes would be the price of healthcare reform by reconciliation.  

–7.25 / –7.28 | http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/tw...

---

by: mattw @ Fri Jun 19, 2009 at 21:13:23 PM UTC