The Bush Agenda: Repealing the New Deal

[Frodo]

The Bush Deal
FDR’s Social Security program remains so popular that the president must couch his radical reform pitch in the guise of saving it

WEB EXCLUSIVE
By Jonathan Alter
Newsweek
Updated: 12:47 a.m. ET Feb. 20, 2005

Feb. 17 - President Bush’s overhaul of Social Security isn’t going well right now, but it’s important to remember that he is playing a long game that is less attuned to daily or weekly news cycles than to what he hopes are the cycles of history. At issue is nothing less than the repeal of the whole idea behind the New Deal.

Peter Wehner, a key White House strategist, put it this way in a recent memo: “For the first time in six decades, the Social Security battle is one we can win—and in doing so, we can help transform the political and philosophical landscape of the country.” The White House wasn’t happy this leaked; it is claiming publicly with Orwellian logic that Bush wants simply to update the New Deal. But the history of this debate says otherwise.

The New Deal entered the language during Governor Franklin D. Roosevelt’s speech accepting the Democratic nomination for president in 1932. It was originally just a catch-all phrase for his vaguely liberal platform, but soon took on a distinct ideological meaning.

That year, even many Democrats were appalled at the idea of FDR embracing what he called “the forgotten man.” The progressive Al Smith, for instance, anticipated GOP arguments of later years by accusing FDR of fostering class warfare. Republican President Herbert Hoover was in many ways a progressive by today’s standards—he had grown famous organizing relief efforts during World War I and favored raising taxes to balance the budget. But he was appalled at the idea of the federal government guaranteeing anyone, even old people, a decent standard of living. That was the job of business and voluntary associations. Americans, he felt, should be captains of their own fate.

The animating idea of the New Deal was something quite different—a new social contract under which we all owed each other something. Much of the New Deal was dedicated to increasing taxes, then using the money to prevent farm and home foreclosures and to help people back into the middle class with low-interest loans. Its centerpiece, Social Security, was about making sure the elderly felt in the autumn of their lives that they owned a bit of the American Dream, too. In a way, it was Roosevelt who invented the “ownership society.” Tax revenues weren’t “your money” but “our money”—an instrument for righting some moral wrongs, like octogenarians having to dig ditches to eat.

Nowadays this sounds like a hopelessly old-fashioned Clifford Odets play. But Social Security was so popular from the moment it was enacted in 1935 that it cowed Republicans into me-tooism. The next five Republican nominees for president—Alf Landon, Wendell Willkie, Thomas Dewey, Dwight D. Eisenhower, Richard Nixon—were all moderates who accepted the premise of the New Deal, though they pushed for a more business-friendly government.

But even as GOP platforms endorsed Social Security, the ascendant conservative wing of the party—from Robert Taft to Barry Goldwater to Ronald Reagan—considered it a threat to the free enterprise system. The attacks on what William Randolph Hearst called the “Raw Deal” became all the more venomous as Republicans grew frustrated by the staying power of FDR’s legacy. This curdled into the bitterness of the McCarthy era. Anti-communism worked for the GOP in part because it dovetailed with their critique of the New Deal as being socialist or even communist at its core.

But after his death, FDR was too popular to attack frontally. A conservative urban legend was born that lives even now—most recently peddled by Fox News’ Brit Hume—that Roosevelt actually wanted to convert Social Security to private accounts after 30 years. (It’s completely untrue, though he did favor supplemental voluntary retirement insurance above and beyond standard Social Security). While constituents loved Social Security, conservative politicians did not. Within their own ranks, they seethed. Lou Cannon, Reagan’s biographer, wrote that Reagan “shared the view that Social Security was a Ponzi scheme.”

After Goldwater was crushed in 1964 and Reagan lost the 1976 primaries to Gerald Ford in part because both wanted to make Social Security voluntary, the issue became the “third rail of American politics.” Touch it and you die. As president, Reagan was slam-dunked when he tried to cut benefits and he later gave in and strengthened the program. Only now do we have a president who is willing to go at the underpinnings of the New Deal consensus.

Bush cannot do so directly. FDR’s handiwork is still so revered that the president must cast his proposal in the guise of saving Social Security. But Bush’s idea is almost 180 degrees from Roosevelt’s. The New Deal was about insuring against risk, so that disadvantaged people felt more secure in the knowledge that the government would help them stand against the vicissitudes of fate. The Bush Deal is about expanding risk, so that disadvantaged people feel more acutely than at any time since the 1920s that they are at sea amid unpredictable market forces, fending for themselves.

© 2005 Newsweek, Inc.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

The last time the Republican party had this much power, we got the Great Depression.

[The Duke]

Why are you posting all these articles?  Most psoters use their own opinions to start threads.

[Frodo]

Why are you posting all these articles?

i post these articles and op-eds because i think people would be interested in them -it isn't that hard to figure out.   

You must be logged in to read this quote.

i am not the only one posting articles without making comments on them, BTW.  and quite honestly, i prefer to decide which articles i intend to comment on, and which i don't. 

     

[The Duke]

Why are you posting all these articles?

i post these articles and op-eds because i think people would be interested in them -it isn't that hard to figure out.   

You must be logged in to read this quote.

i am not the only one posting articles without making comments on them, BTW.  and quite honestly, i prefer to decide which articles i intend to comment on, and which i don't. 

Its true that other posters pst articles, its not rue that they most large numbers of articles in a short time frame before surpassing 60 posts in their career.  I just thinks its strange.

[dazzleman]

Jonathan Alter is a highly biased Bush hater.  I will believe the Democrats when they come up with a plan of their own regarding social security, rather than deny a problem that they highlighted (but did nothing about) when Clinton was president.

The Democrats are already on record admitting there is a long-term problem with social security, so their current denial just isn't going to cut it.  Where's the plan, other than to oppose Bush?

[opebo]

The Democrats are already on record admitting there is a long-term problem with social security, so their current denial just isn't going to cut it.  Where's the plan, other than to oppose Bush?

I think removing the Social Security tax cap is the solution being discussed by Democrats.

[dazzleman]

The Democrats are already on record admitting there is a long-term problem with social security, so their current denial just isn't going to cut it.  Where's the plan, other than to oppose Bush?

I think removing the Social Security tax cap is the solution being discussed by Democrats.

Which would effectively make social security into a welfare program rather than a pension program in which benefits are earned, as it is currently structured, however loosely.  Philosophically, this could have negative long-term implications regarding the viability of the program.

Welfare programs are far more vulnerable politically, which is why the Democrats originally insisted that it not be a welfare program.  That strategy worked brilliantly; social security was never considered a program to benefit low-life freeloaders the way welfare has long been.  By removing the cap, social security comes much closer to being a welfare program, since benefits are capped but taxes would not be.  This will seriously undermine support for the program among higher income Americans.  I know you think everybody in the US works for minimum wage, but your view is seriously skewed.

[opebo]

The Democrats are already on record admitting there is a long-term problem with social security, so their current denial just isn't going to cut it.  Where's the plan, other than to oppose Bush?

I think removing the Social Security tax cap is the solution being discussed by Democrats.

Which would effectively make social security into a welfare program rather than a pension program in which benefits are earned, as it is currently structured, however loosely.  Philosophically, this could have negative long-term implications regarding the viability of the program.

Welfare programs are far more vulnerable politically, which is why the Democrats originally insisted that it not be a welfare program.  That strategy worked brilliantly; social security was never considered a program to benefit low-life freeloaders the way welfare has long been.  By removing the cap, social security comes much closer to being a welfare program, since benefits are capped but taxes would not be.  This will seriously undermine support for the program among higher income Americans.  I know you think everybody in the US works for minimum wage, but your view is seriously skewed.

Well, I think the number of americans who make over $90,000/yr is clearly a very small minority.  As for the perception of SS, I'm well aware of the intention of the Democrats to avoid the misperception people usually have of welfare programs.  Of course things that are not redistributive are only marginally useful.

[Jake]

Good, repeal the New Deal, it's gotten to be the Old Lie now.

[J. J.]

The last time the Republican party had this much power, we got the Great Depression.

Actually, we had the 1950's.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

The last time the Republican party had this much power, we got the Great Depression.

Actually, we had the 1950's.

You didn't have the Supreme Court.

[David S]

The Democrats are already on record admitting there is a long-term problem with social security, so their current denial just isn't going to cut it.  Where's the plan, other than to oppose Bush?

I think removing the Social Security tax cap is the solution being discussed by Democrats.

If that happens, I hope you guys with the red avatars become wealthy and self-employed and make $1 million per year, so you can pay $120,000 a year in SS taxes, and get back only a fraction of it when you retire. How's that for a curse?

[??????????]

The last time the Republican party had this much power, we got the Great Depression.

This proves you know absolutely nothing about the great Depression.

Great Myths of the Great Depression See this link.

[opebo]

The last time the Republican party had this much power, we got the Great Depression.

Actually, we had the 1950's.

Eisenhower was a good liberal, and nobody attempted to repeal the New Deal in the 1950's.

[opebo]

The Democrats are already on record admitting there is a long-term problem with social security, so their current denial just isn't going to cut it.  Where's the plan, other than to oppose Bush?

I think removing the Social Security tax cap is the solution being discussed by Democrats.

If that happens, I hope you guys with the red avatars become wealthy and self-employed and make $1 million per year, so you can pay $120,000 a year in SS taxes, and get back only a fraction of it when you retire. How's that for a curse?

Um, if my income is one million dollars a year, I'm not complaining.   But I guess that was your point?

Reminds me of back in high school in the 1980's.. I was over at a friend's house discussing the Capital Gains Tax.  My friend's mom (a union Democrat) overheard us, and chimed in with the most memorable comment I have ever heard about the capgains tax - 'You should have such problems!'

[A18]

What a brain dead statement. That is memorable how?

[opebo]

What a brain dead statement. That is memorable how?

Because for the rich to complain about marginal tax rates is absurd.  Even if you had every dime taxed away above a million a year, you're still better off than almost everyone else.  So they should shut up their whining, and remember it is always possible their slaves will rise up and simply bash their heads in.

[A18]

What the hell does that have to do with anything?

[WilliamSeward]

What a brain dead statement. That is memorable how?

Because for the rich to complain about marginal tax rates is absurd.  Even if you had every dime taxed away above a million a year, you're still better off than almost everyone else.  So they should shut up their whining, and remember it is always possible their slaves will rise up and simply bash their heads in.

With that kind of talk, it's no wonder people don't go Dem anymore