I realize we have very good reason to suspect that Clinton would have made (or ultimately accepted) proposals compromising the integrity of Social Security, but what *actual* sources do we have? I am only aware of Robin Blackburn's essay in the Cockburn/St Clair book (extract on-line at: http://www.counterpunch.org/blackburn10302004.html). Blackburn doesn't cite his references but they seem to all come from a hagiography edited by 2 Clinton era middle-level staffers (Am. Eco Policy in the '90s by Frankel & Orszag which is essays from a 2001 Harvard conference).
I have looked through the book and I have to say it doesn't seem to give any such smoking gun - far from it there is LOTS of explicit hedging that claims Clinton himself had not yet engaged the policy and that the staff were vaguely heading towards where Gene Sperling is today publicly (some sort of universal 401k's but only as an add-on to the current SS). Of course, the book's version should not be simply taken on face value. (I have not yet tried to discuss this with Blackburn.)
Does anyone have any written sources? Overall it seems the Clinton people have been exceptionally discreet about any internal debates (left dissent or otherwise) on ALL issues of economic policy (or foreign policy, for that matter). Even the Stiglitz's book is very "gentlemanly" towards a crowd that treated him badly. I find this odd for an Administration that was not known for its discipline or corporate cohesiveness.
Paul
Carol C., quoting Doug H. on Bushes approval ratings writes:
>This is probably _very_ bad news for the future of social security, for
>it means that the system can be butchered as soon as a nominally liberal
>president is elected. We can't depend on every DP president being unable
>to keep his pants buttoned. Those depending on social security will just
>have to hope that the Republicans succeed in nominating and electing a
>candidate at least as incompetent and unpopular as Bush is now.
>
>Carrol