<http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/TheNote/story?id6238>
Social Security: the politics: The Washington Post's Jonathan Weisman turns in another look at the new Post-ABC/ABC-Post poll, leading with the mere 35 percent who approve of President Bush's handling of the issue - and offers a great explanation of the conundrum middle-aged workers face in having to wait before being able to contribute the maximum amount to their personal accounts. LINK
But Bloomberg's Jeff Bliss and Peter Cook report that Sen. John Sununu (R-NH) is optimistic that congressional Republicans can overcome the skepticism and pass a Social Security overhaul this year.
But the Washington Post's Jeffrey Birnbaum reports that it's not just the public who's skeptical about the President's Social Security plan - some in the business community are jittery too. The Financial Services Forum, an association of 19 heads of large financial services companies, is withdrawing from Compass, the financial industry's group to gain support for the plan. LINK
"The forum is the third defection in a month from business-led Social Security coalitions. Waddell & Reed Financial Inc., a Kansas-based money management company, and Edward D. Jones & Co., a Missouri-based brokerage, withdrew from the Alliance for Worker Retirement Security. The alliance, a sister organization to Compass, focuses on direct lobbying of Congress on behalf of Bush's proposal, which includes private accounts as part of Social Security."
"The moves are a blow to Bush's effort. The White House is relying on coalitions such as Compass and the alliance to help persuade lawmakers and the public to rally behind the president's plan. Wall Street groups have been leaders in the fundraising for those drives."
"Organized labor and the AARP, the senior citizens lobby, have been raising and spending amounts that rival the business coalitions and their allies, but neither have had to contend with similar discontent in their ranks."
The Los Angeles Times' Peter Wallsten portrays the development as the latest wobble in the house of cards. LINK
Bloomberg's Heidi Przybyla reports that financial companies like Charles Schwab & Co. and Wachovia Corp., who support the President's Social Security plan, will soon find themselves targets - of the AFL-CIO. The country's largest labor union is planning at least 50 events, including rallies outside Schwab and Wachovia headquarters.
This is on top of AFSCME's letter writing campaign to executives including Schwab chairman Charles Schwab and Morgan Stanley chairman Philip Purcell, intimating that supporting the plan will cost them business when unions pull their pension plans. The AFL says they're also going after Schwab because of its ties to California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, who's pushing a ballot initiative to force state and local government workers into 401(k) plans instead of pensions.
David Brooks is pessimistic: "At this point there's no better than a one-in-four chance that some form of Social Security reform will be passed this year. There's no sign that Republicans will bend on their insistence on private accounts or Democrats on their opposition. There's no sign that enough Republicans will tolerate tax increases or that enough Democrats will tolerate benefit cuts." LINK
He blames it on Republican blunders (too little Congressional strategizing, too much think-tank worldview, no GOP skills at cross-party negotiation) and Democratic blunders (too afraid to compromise.)
Compared to his "provisional obituary," however, this morning finds an optimistic Wall Street Journal editorial board.
They give a hearty nod to Sen. Robert Bennett's progressive-indexing-based-on-income proposal, calling it the "best idea we've seen for engaging Democrats who might be inclined to approach Social Security constructively while letting Republicans stay true to their principles (i.e., no tax increases)."
"This is far more appealing politically, and less damaging economically, than Senator Lindsey Graham's alternative of socking middle-income Americans with a tax increase. Some conservatives with a glancing familiarity with economics are now saying it's no big deal to raise the $90,000 cap on wages subject to the 12.4% payroll tax."
One of Bennett's intellectual inspirations, Robert Pozen, explains progressive indexing in a separate, well-timed Journal op-ed.
On the same page, pollster John Zogby warns Democrats to ignore the potential of an ownership society - at their peril.
Over in the New York Times, Paul Krugman warns folks - and Democrats like Joe Lieberman - not to be taken in by the President contention that the cost of waiting carries a price tag of $600 billion per annum. LINK
We sense of late that Krugman does not (HEART) Lieberman.
Time magazine's John Dickerson was out on the road with the President, and Notes Bush's apparent pleasure in being Salesman-in-Chief. LINK
"The President gets so folksy, he occasionally admits some truths his spinners have spent months trying to paper over. When one widow says she has invested in bonds as the safest investment, he cracks: 'Well, not so safe, unless we fix the deficit.' The audience laughs and Bush quickly rushes to cover his slip. 'We're fixing the deficit,' he promises."