by publius
So enough of the primary — let’s talk general election. Here are a few random observations:
Is “Bush III” a Wise Strategy?
Obama’s narrative is — to his credit — very simple. McCain is Bush III. Easy to explain, easy to understand.
Several people have, however, questioned the wisdom of this strategy. Because McCain’s brand is “Johnny Maverick,” the argument is that Obama can never make Bush III stick. For instance, one of my favorite conservative bloggers, Patrick Ruffini, has argued that Obama should instead adopt a “depress the base” strategy by highlighting McCain’s disputes with the conservative wing. In other words, Obama should use “Johnny Maverick” to remind conservatives why they dislike McCain.
Personally, I think Obama’s strategy is correct. Plus, he’s already unveiled it and a “depress the base” message at this point would conceptually undermine everything he’s already said. In any event, I think Ruffini is overlooking how much Obama’s Bush III strategy will indirectly depress the conservative base by forcing McCain to disown them. In short, “Bush III” will kill two birds with one stone.
Whatever the merits of the Bush III strategy may be, the McCain team clearly feels like it’s damaging them. Otherwise, they wouldn’t be pushing back so hard on it. Thus, as the general election goes on, McCain is increasingly going to feel the need to play up his maverick side. Of course, all candidates move to the center in the general. But McCain will feel more urgency about it than, say, Bush did. And each time he does so, it will rankle an already-rankled base. And let’s be honest — it’s hard to imagine the base knocking on doors this fall to get him elected as it is, much less after several months of hearing him run away from Bush.
Social Security — Use It Early and Often
So apparently old white people don’t like Obama so much. You know what they do like? Social Security. You know what they don’t like? Private accounts. And though he’s recently flip-flopped, McCain has supported Bush’s private accounts. He told the WSJ this March:
“As part of Social Security reform, I believe that private savings accounts are a part of it — along the lines that President Bush proposed.”
When the WSJ informed him that his website only favored private accounts as “supplements,” he told the WSJ that he would change the website. (He didn’t, perhaps because McCain wasn’t grasping the policy details at the time).
He’s since flip-flopped, but Obama should still hammer him on this — if for no other reason than to show that McCain doesn’t know what the heck he’s talking about. I haven’t dug up his 2005 statements during the original privatization debate, but I’m sure there’s some goodies in there.
If I were Obama, I would literally start putting the commercials up in Florida tomorrow. I mean, if only people had had a chance to invest a third of their Social Security benefits in the roaring markets over the past three years — just imagine the returns.
Money Money Money
Much ink has already been spilled on Obama’s fundraising superiority. There are a million advantages to having more money, but one biggie is that it weakens McCain’s superficially-strong Electoral College position.
Like a poker player with fewer chips, McCain has to be more risk averse. He simply can’t play every “hand.” As a result, the campaign is going to play out mostly in the “Bush” states with McCain on defense. Yes, Michigan and New Hampshire and Pennsylvania will be battleground states, but there are a lot more “Bush” states in play, and McCain will have to defend him.
I’m sure he’ll have the money he needs to compete there (though super-expensive PA will be a dilemma), but the lack of funds will keep him from fighting in places like New Jersey and the West Coast. Those states may seem potentially in play now, but there’s no way McCain can afford to take that gamble — opportunity costs are indeed a harsh mistress.
Cranky John McCain
Jonathan Martin’s Politico piece (like other recent articles) states that McCain and his team have a deep personal contempt for Obama. They think he’s undeserving. If that’s true, then Cranky needs to get over that pretty quickly.
One of the most serious errors a political candidate can make is to underestimate her opponent (Reagan anyone?). Obama didn’t win the Democratic nomination through blind luck. His campaign was impressive at all levels — much more so than McCain’s ragtag operation featuring Excitable Mark Salter.
As Martin correctly notes, disrespecting Obama could easily backfire on McCain. For one, it’s going to lead to the sort of raving, angry personal attacks that we saw during the Webb bill debate. That’s probably what led him to deny Obama his day in the sun, opting instead for the Green Speech (sort of like the White Album, only crankier and, well, greener). Second, it’s going to reinforce an image of him as the Cranky Old Man screaming “get off my grass” (phrase borrowed from John Cole).
Here’s some friendly advice for Candidate Cranky — you can start holding candidates in contempt when they stop being 8 points ahead of you in the polls. Otherwise, respect is the wiser course.
Second, it’s going to reinforce an image of him as the Cranky Old Man screaming “get off my grass” (phrase borrowed from John Cole).
I’ve started referring to McCain as “Gramps”. If he can call Obama young, then we get to call him old.
“Bush II”, especially with his voting record over the last year and a hlaf works fairly well, I think. Also, “support” vs action: Just the other day, Gramps made a speech on how much he “supported” the Everglades. That same day, he voted against a bill to pay for said support.
Obama has it exactly right. The problem is that McCain benefits both from his mverick image and his embrace of the Bush base.
The difference is that his maverick image is mostly fake and the embrace of the right is real. Obama is better off describing McCain as he is.
McCain’s best chance of making the maverick image stick is for everybody to talk about it. And if Obama accepts it as real, so will everybody else. Take away the fact that everybody refers to McCain as the “maverick”, and you’re left with his voting record, which isn’t very mavericky at all. Just icky.
I’m glad to see I’m not the only one thinking that Obama should absolutely hammer McCain on Social Security, espcially in parts of the country with a lot of older white people. (Not just Florida, but PA and WV as well.) Like you say, McCain’s stand(s) on Social Security seem like the perfect antidote to Obama’s weakness with the over-50 demographic.
I also think there’s a way of re-branding McCain’s ‘Maverick’ branding that won’t conflict with the ‘Bush III’ approach: by demonstrating that McCain’s such a maverick that he’s not afraid to disagree with himself, over and over again.
Imagine a commercial, with the theme music from the 1960s TV western, “Maverick,” running through the background, as clips with McCain opposing and contradicting himself on a multitude of issues play.
It should be done in a lighthearted, humorous way, so that the watchers feel they’re in on the joke, rather than in the typical heavy-handed political commercial style.
This kind of stuff, which happens on nearly a weekly basis with McCain, will do him no favors either, and the Democrats should hammer him relentlessly on it. Frankly, insinuations of Alzheimer’s would not be out of line here.
Phil: Yes, yes, they would be out of line.
If McCain has any genuine medical impairment, that’s likely to become achingly clear in the next few months. (Personally, I think it’s possible.) If he does, the last thing any Democrat should be wanting to say is “Oh, well, I was just using that as a smear. Gee. Sorry it’s true.”
Furthermore, that kind of thing can backfire. Have you ever had a drawn-out diagnosis search for anything, or watched an elderly friend or loved one go through it? It sucks. It’s almost better to have a confirmed, solid diagnosis of something with the nightmarish potential of Alzheimer’s than to spend years being told “It’s Parkinson’s, no, wait, it’s adult-onset encephalitus, no, wait, maybe it’s…”, with fresh sets of prospects and fears. People who’ve been through that – or are in the midst of it – are quite likely to get…well, just as angry as I am now at the thought of making innuendo out of another man’s uncertain situation for partisan gain.
Some things should simply be out of bounds, if we are interested in championing the interests of a population that includes people with a sense of propriety and a mutual regard for one another’s well-being. It’s indecent.
My own preference is for letting the facts speak for themselves. Show McCain flying off the handle, refusing to discuss anything, denying his own responsibility for awful things and so on, and let others draw their own conclusions. He is an ill-tempered, self-justifying bully, and that alone is good reason not to trust him with power, and doesn’t require us to make a game out of the miseries that can accompany the end of life.
John Cole points to an example of McCain denying on Friday that he said what he’s on camera saying that Tuesday. “McCain won’t stand by his own words. What makes you think he’ll stand by you?” Not a hint of medical exploitation in that, and just as to the point.
I agree with Bruce that Alzheimers is out of bounds. However, PTSD is actually far more likely.
I am not sure that Obama himself should bring that up, but it can be introduced several ways, particularly in light of current problems being experienced by veterans. Here is a man who suffered torture while being imprisoned for 5 years, acknowledges the torture broke him and admitted to committing war crimes.
He is a prime candidate for major PTSD and, in fact, displays many of the symptoms of it.
Bruce, your link in your 7:08 is the same thing I linked to in my comment. If you’re going to take the time to dress me down, at least pretend that you clicked through my links. Thanks muchly.
put me in the “no remote psychological diagnoses” category.
ktxhbye
Phil, I will be happy to click through your links if you can come over and fix a recurring DNS problems. I have stretches of a minute to an hour or so where I can refresh existing sites fine but nothing new gets found. I’m in Seattle, and I can offer lunch.
Frankly, talking about McCains age is hypocrisy and is a POOR choice of a talking point.
Why?
Because Sen Lautenburg of NJ has just won the Dem Primary. He will be 92 when (if) his next term ends. Sen Byrd is 91 NOW! And have you seen him on the Senate floor? It’s getting to where even his Dem colleagues wince when he gets up to speak.
It’s greatly hilarious to hear Democrats talk of McCain’s age while electing REAL antiquities.
So, kep it up, it will backfire now that the General is on.
Same with “Bush III”.
You can’t pick and choose issues to play this game.
Funny how Obama’s Illegal Immigration stance is the same as Bush’s. I guess that makes HIM a candidate for Bush III, too.
See how that works?
Even the smallest of research on McCain will show this is not true, anyway.
And, again with history repeating itself, by November this will just show the American people how petty the Democratic Party is. And how stupid the DNC is for offering a far lefty that Mainstream American will REJECT, AGAIN!
It boggles the mind how much of an advantage the Dems had this year, and they blow it by nominating a flawed Liberal candidate.
Howard Dean has screwed the Party.
Funny how Obama’s Illegal Immigration stance is the same as Bush’s. I guess that makes HIM a candidate for Bush III, too.
See how that works?
which position on immigration is that ? it’s so hard to keep ’em all straight.
The WaPo has two powerful editorials today supporting George Bush. Will they oppose Obama?
==================
Fred Hiatt about the canard ‘Bush Lied, People Died’, and Dan Eggen about Bush’s legacy.
=====================
The problem with age is that it is an expectation lower-er. Recall that Reagan made a big rebound after being written off simply by (in my hopelessly leftist mind) setting up a nice punchline about Mondale’s ‘youth and inexperience’. Questions about McCain’s temper on the other hand are something else, I think.
Count me as another person in favor of not bringing up McCain’s age, and certainly not psychiatric diagnoses at a distance. (To be more precise: I think that you have to draw lines about age: does casting yourself as the candidate of change, and your opponent as the candidate of tired old thinking, count? As far as I’m concerned, that’s fine, if you back it up with specifics that don’t involve age.)
I think there are genuine issues about age that deserve a thoughtful exploration. Certainly Reagan seemed to me, by his second term, to have signs of memory problems, and it’s very much worth asking whether that’s a risk we ought to run. That said, I think that a Presidential campaign is just not going to produce any such thoughtful exploration of the issues. Even if we assume, for the sake of argument, that Obama raises them in the most thoughtful, nuanced way possible, that would be wholly lost.
What would not be lost is the thought: Obama is beating up on McCain. Also, the thought: this is a new kind of politics?
If you think it’s unfair to bring this stuff up, then of course Obama shouldn’t. If you think it’s fair, then I think the best way to go would be to take the high road, and let these issues bring themselves up, as a result of McCain’s conduct, or not. It’s also the way that has the virtue of keeping you honest: if they don’t bring themselves up, then presumably it’s because they don’t exist.
Even without implying Alzheimer’s, I think too much emphasis on age could cause a backlash, much like the support Clinton got from a backlash against sexism (even though the sexism didn’t come from Obama’s campaign). Old people vote, and they’re well aware that McCain is old and of the effects of age. They don’t need to be reminded, especially through stereotypes and ridicule of the old.
There are plenty of old people who don’t feel comfortable about electing someone their age because they know they don’t have the energy, memory, or quickness and flexibility of thinking that they used to. But talk of McCain screaming “get off my grass” isn’t going to help them embrace Obama (not that you were actually suggesting Obama do that).
McCain’s age is obvious. The point is made simply by having him and Obama both appear on people’s TV screens. The Obama campaign should stay far away from the issue (even thanking McCain for his “half century of service” is too much).
I’ll see your Byrd and Lautenberg and raise you a Strom Thurmond!
Some excerpts from that Eggen piece
Meet George W. Bush, time traveler.
and
As the door begins to close on his tenure, Bush is increasingly drawing on selected events of the past to argue that history will vindicate him on Iraq, terrorism, trade and other controversial issues.
and
“It’s all he has left,” said Millsaps College history professor Robert S. McElvaine, who conducted the survey for the History News Network of George Mason University. “When your approval ratings are down around 20 to 28 percent and the candidate of your own party is trying to hide from being seen with you, history is your only hope.”
If that is what counts as a powerful editorial supporting Bush, I hope kim doesn’t see the ones that don’t support him.
Sorry, the link is here
Eh, read the whole thing, and Hiatt’s piece too.
Now consider, will historians respect Scott McClellan’s book, or Doug Feith’s?
========================
“Substantially supported by intelligence information”. What price Larry Johnson, Joe Wilson, and Val Plame?
=========================
um, neither?
You haven’t read either of them. One is scholarly, the other propaganda.
================
Publius, you should know better than to use three years of returns to castigate private accounts. You know that over the long term stocks do better than most other vehicles available. Do you think we are all morons out here?
==========================
It takes a strange perspective to read the Eggen piece as “supporting” George Bush.
It takes a strange perspective to read the Eggen piece as “supporting” George Bush.
AndyK, note the juxtaposition temporally of the Eggen piece with Hiatt’s one substantially altering the public’s perception of his legacy.
================================
I think that attcks on McCAin’s age should be out of bounds for a whole bunch of reasons, the the biggest one is simply that, without eveidnce of dementia, it’s mean.
On the other hand I think he does nedd to tie McCain to the past. There is nothing wrong with that: its true and lots of younger peole ( visit the NRO site) are just as tied to the past.
Also I do not think that Democrats should be optimistic about this elelction. McCain has been written off before. Plenty of voters don’t vote for issues or are prepared to punish the Repuclican party at the state or local level whiole still supporting the party at the national level. Fear is still a powerful force in our politics.
I think we can win but I think it is not going to be easy.
How about “McCain is a political whore that will do or say anything to get elected.”
I really hope this campaign doesn’t end up being “another angry campaign of mere mobilization rather than persuasion.” (George Will commenting on what would happen if Obama chose Clinton as a running mate). Or another campaign of sloganeering rather than persuasion. “Bush III” seems so sophomoric. And while age is more relevant, “get off my grass” isn’t the way to bring it up. I am hoping for more persuasion from the candidate of change. Or (query)will that mean he has to reveal too much of his true liberal identity?
I mean, if only people had had a chance to invest a third of their Social Security benefits in the roaring markets over the past three years — just imagine the returns.
I agree that this issue will probably help Obama. But look at what the State of Alaska SBS participant were getting. SBS is where their “social security” goes. There is a reason why a lot of employees end up with serious coin in the bank at retirement (well over $1Million) plus their retirement to boot.
kim – for some people they are, and for some they’re not. averages (even assuming you’ve average correctly) doesn’t much help the guy who had some mutual funds heavily exposed to the subprime mess.
that’s the whole point — to eliminate risk. except for iraq, private accounts are by far the most reckless, unwise policy the administration proposed (particularly given the enormous and efficient success of SS).
Whatever the merits of the Bush III strategy may be, the McCain team clearly feels like it’s damaging them. Otherwise, they wouldn’t be pushing back so hard on it.
I think this is exactly right. McCain has howled at being called a warmoger, at the (accurate) replaying of his 100 years clip, etc. So keep hammering those — over & over.
And, yeah, social security too.
SF
I really hope this campaign doesn’t end up being “another angry campaign of mere mobilization rather than persuasion.”
…
I am hoping for more persuasion from the candidate of change.
That is my reaction too. I want Obama to start the campaign by making a positive case for the good things his administration will do rather than focus on attacking McCain.
Let’s keep it classy until the other side goes into the gutter. At some point the campaign will get negative, but let McCain initiate it. Obama’s team seems to be very adroit at counterpunching.
Yes, publius, you must think we are morons. You eliminate risk, and you eliminate reward. What a great way to fund retirement. Do you see why the Fund is rapidly approaching insolvency?
=====================================
Bush III is very much a successful line of attack, and not just because it’s true. There’s no such thing as an unassailable image in politics anymore, if there ever was. In 2000 and 2004 Republicans got a lot of mileage going after their opponent’s strengths. If John Kerry can be falsely painted as unpatriotic (and by utter, shameless cowards), then no, McCain’s maverick image – and it is only an image – can most definitely be truthfully dismantled.”
As far as the age issue goes, there’s a couple ways to play it. One is taking the high road, which can work I suppose. Two, directly making it an issue, is definitely a non-starter. However, I do think that INDIRECTLY making it an issue is not something we need to be above. For example, WHILE hanging the GWB albatross around McCain’s neck, feel free to be subtle:
“Does John McCain remember supporting George W. Bush’s effort to privatize Social Security?”
Or to rankle the Evangelical base, play this one in northern Florida:
“Has John McCain forgotten what he said about Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell in 2000?
And actually you could rewrite that last one to include his recent cozying up to far right ministers, and use it to creep out everyone who ISN’T a rightwing Evangelical. Use the “Hitler did God’s work” pastor (Hagee I think) to freak out Jewish communities in southern Florida, and between the two, bam, Obama wins one of the big swing states.
The last option for dealing with the age question is to pull a dirty Nixon ratfucking operation. Start a 527 with some appropriately conservative-sounding name, make a few small donations to small, safely-Republican politicians’ campaigns (to establish credibility). Then use your “conservative” “grassroots” “organization” to make and fund very explicit attacks on McCain’s age. It’s a dirty, Karl Rove-style attack, to make Republicans look mean, cruel, and divided. I do not endorse this plan, of course.
Somehow, publius, the law as written doesn’t do thing for eliminating risk of loss. As presently constructed, the young are not going to be getting their money’s worth. All that’s been eliminated is the risk of complete loss, but the risk of partial loss is guaranteed unless one lives beyond one’s life expectancy.
=================================
Yes, publius, you must think we are morons. You eliminate risk, and you eliminate reward. What a great way to fund retirement. Do you see why the Fund is rapidly approaching insolvency?
Do you not understand the first thing about Social Security? IT’S NOT SUPPOSED TO BE REWARDING. The entire point of it is to be a _safety net_ to reduce risk. A high-risk, high-reward Social Security is the same thing as NO Social Security, you lunkhead.
And by “rewarding” I mean “a path to riches.” It’s supposed to be safe money, very – what’s that funny word that has lost all meaning? – conservative, in the sense of ‘not being risky.’
So what about the guaranteed loss. The risk of that is not reduced, but made inevitable.
Look, it is a Ponzi scheme. What is secure about that?
===================
Don’t accuse McCain of altzheimer’s whatever you do. On the ohter hand, hammer him hard on every flip-flop and every memory lapse. Treat him as a competent candidate (giving him the benefit of the doubt) and then hammer him whenever he slips. Only if he uses age to excuse those slips should you play the age card.
If McCain doesn’t have altzheimer’s then you’re going dirty in a way that will backfire if you accuse him of it – and if he does then he’ll be giving him all the ammunition you could want – and will keep giving you it until he either retreats or pleads altzheimer’s.
Sorry, buddy, a Ponzi scheme is not ‘conservative’.
===============================
Read Arthur Herman in the New York Post today. Bush III might be McCain’s winning strategy yet. Even jihadists are rejecting al Qaeda.
===============================
Let’s keep it classy until the other side goes into the gutter. At some point the campaign will get negative, but let McCain initiate it.
What, McCain hasn’t already gone negative?
[Not that he couldn’t go a whole hell of a lot more negative, of course, but I don’t recall him being particularly positive of late.]
“I want Obama to start the campaign by making a positive case for the good things his administration will do rather than focus on attacking McCain.”
Recipe. For. Disaster.
We’re talking about seriously twisted ways of thinking that are accepted as common sense by an electorate that is, at its core, aligned with progressive values. You simply cannot pry open peoples’ minds without using some destructive force.
As you said, LeftTurn, Obama can counterpunch and still keep it classy. He can also initiate punches and keep it classy.
I have stretches of a minute to an hour or so where I can refresh existing sites fine but nothing new gets found. I’m in Seattle, and I can offer lunch.
Bruce, you might consider using OpenDNS to alleviate your DNS problems. I switched a few weeks ago after getting sick of Comcast randomly disappearing DNS for the fifth time that weak and life has been better ever since. OpenDNS is free and relatively easy.
I’d agree that Obama himself, and probably his direct campaign proxies, shouldn’t hammer the age issue — because the late-night comedies are going to hammer it for him. But realistically, Things Younger Than McCain (the LP record!), or at least the memes therein, is going to have more impact on the race than all the serious political blogs put together.
Read Arthur Herman in the New York Post today. Bush III might be McCain’s winning strategy yet. Even jihadists are rejecting al Qaeda.
The Post is a rag.
Anyway, who cares about AQI? It was never a threat to us, or the world, just another (small) bunch of thugs using a glitzy brand name.
Publius, I agree with you that Bush III is the way to go. One of Karl Rove’s insights was that in a war of image, you should hit an opponent in what he thought was his strong point and make him waste his energies on defense. E.g., re-framing Al Gore from an innovator into an exaggerator, turning Kerry from a war hero into a cowardly fake. Same concept here, force McCain to try to burnish his “maverick” credentials and it will a) put him on the defensive and b) become obvious how thin they are.
Hi, Bruce. I’m in Seattle too. So are CaseyL and Wonkie, IIRC.
Anybody interested in an ObWi Meetup?
BTW, I wasn’t intending to endorse attacks about McCain’s age. That’s a bad idea. As hilzoy said, if his age is really a problem, his behavior will make that clear. Sadly, peoples’ biases about age are going to be activated, especially when they see McCain and hear his voice on the same stage as Obama. There’s no need to play on that or attempt to activate it. I will bet another Andrew Jackson (since I didn’t lose it on my Clinton prediction), though, that Republicans will accuse the Obama campaign of stirring up an age issue. So mote it be. Obama can continue to deflect it by saying, “I’m not questioning whether he’s too old to make good judgements. I already know his judgement is wrong regardless of his age”.
Thanks, Turbulence! I’ll give it a try.
Kim, you are misinformed as to the state of Social Security. It is in excellent shape, and in the long run it provides a better return than the markets do. Furthermore, it provides a trustable return even in years when the markets are off, as it should. I’ll hunt up recent reporting on this.
Sure! A meetup for Puget Sounders would be fun.
I can’t believe so many people want to bring up McCain’s age and attribute his flip-flops to increasing dementia.
The thing to do is flatly deny that McCain’s age is an impediment (and point to other politicians in their 80s and 90s who can still do their jobs), and then to hammer him on every flip-flop as though he is deliberately lying and willing to say anything to get elected.
Let people who are sympathetic to him bring up his age as a defense. Two millstones around his neck for the price of one.
Bush III might be McCain’s winning strategy yet.
Yes, definitely. A great idea. Please go tell McCain’s team that. Let’s hope they listen.
If it helps in making your case, you can say that we liberals are trembling, just trembling at the idea of McCain’s embracing Bush. It’s the strategy we fear the most.
Absolutely, Stephen. McCain should start using the photo of the Hug in his campaign literature.
It is in excellent shape, and in the long run it provides a better return than the markets do.
Hmmm. Social Security does not provide a “return” in the commonly-understood sense. Social Security is a generational transfer.
Furthermore, it provides a trustable return even in years when the markets are off, as it should.
In the narrow sense of degrees, yes. But, generally, no. Social security is already highly linked to the credit markets.
Social security already is a market-based system, although the market is largely concealed from the view of the average voter. A signiciant part of the social security fund is held as US debt instruments (treasury bonds), which are themselves subject to market fluctuations. Changes in the credit markets, the currency markets, inflationary pressures, etc. all can have a direct and immediate effect on social security.
The true question under debate is whether the current market-based approach to SS is appropriate, or whether a new approach should be considered.
Omigosh, I would love a Puget Sound MeetUp! Just not Saturday am, because I volunteer at the Aquarium then.
Social Security is a generational transfer.
Wait, I thought liberals were against any such thing!
Recipe. For. Disaster.
We’re talking about seriously twisted ways of thinking that are accepted as common sense by an electorate that is, at its core, aligned with progressive values. You simply cannot pry open peoples’ minds without using some destructive force.
As you said, LeftTurn, Obama can counterpunch and still keep it classy. He can also initiate punches and keep it classy.
david,
In a normal year I would agree with you, but I don’t think this is a normal year. Obama has been very successful at attracting new voters (either 1st time youngsters or the cynically disaffected who have dropped out of voting) and IMHO his generally positive and optimistic vision for how we can all collectively change the culture of gridlock in DC has been a big factor in doing this. That is a big advantage which I think it would be foolish to risk by opening with a barrage of attacks on McCain. There is still a reservoir of good will and charity towards McCain left over from the 2000 campaign which will cause a backlash against Obama if he is too aggressive. The GOP is going to be desperate to paint Obama as “just a regular politician” hoping to depress turnout and fight the contest on more conventional grounds, so why hand them extra ammunition.
Also, I think there is a groundswell of popular resentment against negative attacks which has built up over time as it starts to sink in what a high price the country is paying (and will pay more going forward) for the polarized politics of the 1990’s and 2000’s. My sense is that people are both hopeful for the future, anxious that we turn a corner on the Bush administration, and angry at the way that they have been manipulated and lied to in the past. If one of the candidates in the general election is associated with that latter trend it will hurt them. The first campaign to go entirely negative will take a big hit this year, IMHO.
I’m not saying that Obama shouldn’t draw a sharp contrast with McCain, just that it should be done in a way which states a positive vision of what an Obama administration will be like. Let the sharper attacks be counterpunches.
Another note on tactics. It seemed to me that in the Democratic nominating contest the Obama campaign was very skilled at using subtle dog-whistle attacks to needle and frustrate the other campaign (in a way which was not noticed by most voters), eventually goading them into much more direct and obvious attacks which then backfired. For example, Obama frequently attacked “the failed politics of the past” rather than just Bush. This was a double dog-whistle – it sent messages to two different audiences:
(1) To disaffected Republicans and Indy’s, it sent the message “I don’t disapprove of your negative feelings about Bill Clinton. You can vote for me without having to apologize for you opposition to him in the past. Both sides share blame for our problems, so you were right to distrust Bill Clinton in the past, just as we are right to criticize Bush now. These criticisms are mutually validating. By accepting this idea, together we can toss overboard baggage which otherwise would make it difficult for you to switch parties and support a Democrat now.”
(2) To the Clinton campaign, and especially to Bill Clinton personally, it sent the message “You aren’t the big dog any more. Neener! Neener! You can’t catch me!”. It was the political equivalent of playing ding-dong-ditch.
Now I think that message became more and more grating as it was repeated, and eventually Bill Clinton just couldn’t take it anymore. After the Nevada “Reagan vs. Clinton Presidential legacy” kerfuffle, Bill stopped being an asset to Hillary’s campaign and became more of a liability and a loose cannon, because of his gaffes (Jess Jackson) and his inability to stay on message, and because by raising his public profile Bill unintentionally undercut Hillary as the center of attention.
The reason why I bring this up, is that is seems to me that McCain is extremely vulnerable to a similar approach – slow and subtle needling and goading, which will lead to a blowup. Given how wretchedly he was treated by the Bush campaign in the 2000 GOP primaries (SC especially), and what it has to have cost him psychologically to suck up to Bush and make friends with the Religious Right to get to this point, I would go after that. I would keep pushing the theme of how much of a Bush loyalist McCain is, how much he has changed from his old positions to fit in as the GOP frontrunner now, and keep pushing his new ties to the RR. Eventually McCain will get so frustrated with being tied to people who have treated him so badly in the past that his frustration and anger will overcome his common sense, and it will go downhill from there.
IMHO, YMMV, etc.
This is a young person’s approach.
That’s not an approach for people who are already in retirement, particularly those who have memories of the Depression. It’s a much more conservative approach. (Talk to any planned giving fundraiser).
You forget this at your peril.
Oh, and by the way…Puget Sound person. (And you guys really should have come to my zombie Shakespeare martial arts show….)
Here is an example of Obama’s campaign tactics from a CNN report.
Four key points for the general:
the war
SS preservation
health care (McCain’s spent his entire life on govt health care)
the economy
Kim’s perspective isn’t unusual and I often heard older people than the truly “young” say that they “wished they’d been able to invest their own money” instead of socking it away in social security. I usually pointed out that nothing had prevented them from “investing their own money” they just would have had to depress their consumption farther below their income–if they weren’t willing to do that with the tiny portion taken out of their incomes for SS what made them think they were going to do it if no one forced them to absent social security. I also carefully explained to these “young at heart” republicans that they were, of course, benefitting from the SS payments made to their own parents which meant their parents weren’t living off of them as parents used to do (those slackers!). These days the argument against “personal accounts” is even more obvious–all you have to do is ask which blue chip stocks and banks they would have trusted their investments in? Either they don’t know or they know all too well that they would have been among the investors who stupidly trusted bush’s cronies in the subprime market scandal and they would have seen their investments wiped out. The rapid fall of the “real” part of “real estate” has had a very salutory effect on people who are actually paying attention.
aimai
gwangung — now he tells me!
Puget Sounders: glad you’re interested. Let’s take this to private email. Please email me, jacoe at foster dot com.
“investors who stupidly trusted bush’s cronies in the subprime market scandal”
Hedge funds managers overwhelmingly contribute campaign money to “D’s”.
Not all, nor even the majority, of hedge fund are connected to the subprime market. I don;t think arbitrage is particularly connected to any country’s fiscal policy (in any direct way).
“nor even the majority, of hedge fund are connected to the subprime market”
Where have you been for the past year? Hedge Funds are directly related to sub-prime lending.
Hedge funds are far more diversified than that. They are, in fact, poorly regulated in that many investors don’t know where the money goes and don’t understand them. And they’re popping into and out of various markets. Many of them are ploughing money directly into companies and edging into venture capital territory.
I won’t say that they didn’t have a major impact on the subprime mess, but the hedge funds are involved in a wide variety of areas.
I don’t believe they are regulated at all according to this wikipedia entry.
with the tiny portion taken out of their incomes for SS
Woah, Nellie! You obviously are not self employed. I wouldn’t call 15.3 percent tiny (12.4 for social security). Look at it this way, 12.4 of $50k/year at the average S&P rate of return would yield a LARGE number.
Obama will have to put the hammer down eventually. He’s been too nice. He has to shut down the innuendo and BS, hard! He can let McCain bury himself to a point but when the 527’s start he has to hold McCain responsible.
How ’bout we win one for once…
So you’re going to let 527s/George Soros–big hedge funds–answer for your candidate.
O’s doing a fine job of smacking McCain around today.
Put me in the no-remote-diagnoses camp: I doubt we’d come out looking any better than Bill Frist did.
I think Obama’s “we honor John McCain’s half-century of service to our country” tweak is the perfect approach to the age issue, for the Obama campaign and its proxies.
And for those of us who aren’t part of the campaign, I’m still for keeping it playful: “Things Younger Than John McCain” is great. More like that!
The age issue is a status issue, like gender or race is, but about health. If you are McCain’s age, then whether or not you can undertake the rigors of the presidency is a legitimate concern. Reagan was 69 in 1980, and in a lot better health than McCain. I think old people fully understand this — they are critically aware of creeping mortality as one ages.
Everyone has seen the dramatic aging pictures of a president comparing his first year in office to his last. Imagine seeing a line up of several such comparisons, followed by a picture of McCain as he appears now followed by a question mark.
References to the ages of Senators is pointless — they do not have near the stress of the presidency on their shoulders.
The age issue is a “doubt” issue — one that does not decide the deal but which influences leaners or undecideds to break for Obama. It is a real and proper weapon if used in this manner. Age should not be treated as a disqualifier, but as something that justifies doubts about McCain’s ability to serve.
The guy has obviously deteriorated from the version that was running in 2000, and not just because he has cravenly caved in order to vainly try and get right wing support. He is just not all there.
“Woah, Nellie! You obviously are not self employed.”
Ha. I had exactly the same thought. If we could get a presidential candidate to acknowledge that a business with one owner and no employees is not, in fact, two people, I would be sorely tempted to vote for him.
Kim: Per your “Do you think we are morons?” and “You must think we are morons…” You wouldn’t happen to be the same Kim who observed over at NY Times Dot.Earth this morning that “It is obvious to all but morons that the role of CO2 in climate has been exaggerated.”
Sure are a lot of Kims out there who enjoy using the word “moron” today!
The guy has obviously deteriorated from the version that was running in 2000, and not just because he has cravenly caved in order to vainly try and get right wing support. He is just not all there.
I agree. I also think that senility should be discussed if McCain is going to continue to says that’s that just aren’t so. It may be unpleasant for our courtier class but this is not grandpa puting the tv in the dishwasher to clean it, we are electing someone to the most powerful office on earth – perhaps we should make sure that any canidate for that office has his (or her) marbles all in one place before making a decision.
Whoops, that’s ‘continue to say things that just aren’t so’
Concentrated wealth is always something to think about, no matter what the politics. If they support policies you also support, that’s not a problem. If they support policies you oppose, you will need to oppose them…in time and in space gathering other like minded people.
damn, goofed the change after editing — age is NOT a status issue
Good post, publius.
On the whole, I think Obama should stick w/ his strengths — in time, McCain’s weaknesses (hypocrisy, economic ineptitude, war-mongering) will speak for themselves.
Hope and change.
Obama squeaked out an impressive primary win over Hillary Clinton w/ that message — and he should stick to it in the GE.
Bill Clinton always said elections are about the future, not the past, sage advice for any candidate (unfortunately, his own wife and her advisors, forgot about this fundamental truth until it was too late).
Obama won’t.
Obama equals the future.
McCain equals the past.
That much will be clear from their appearances alone when they stand on the same stage during a debate.
That much will be clear when Obama — who became a much better debater as the primary campaign went on, thanks to Clinton’s superior performances in the early debates, giving him time to hone his own debating style — and McCain talk issues in the debates.
And while Obama must focus on the future, it’s vital, as a Democrat, he stresses Social Security.
Please, let’s not give the Republicans this issue.
Seniors — like my 65-year-old mother — and non-seniors — like my disabled 44-year-old brother — view Social Security as vital. For many of them, it is the only source of income they have.
I am 45 and consider this an important issue. Sure, when I retire — at 62? at 65? at 68? at 70? — Social Security will look a lot differently than it does now.
But Democrats, the party of FDR, must stress that Social Security will be there in its current state for today’s seniors — and w/ the necessary refinements, will be there when I retire.
Social Security ties into the most important issue of the GE:
Again, to borrow from Clinton: It’s the economy, stupid.
Gas, stagnant wages, raising food prices — these economic hurdles, if you will, play in Peoria and Pittsburgh and Pensacola and all points in between.
Then there’s the war.
As he did with Clinton, Obama can take the high ground and say he was against the war from the start.
If I were him, I wouldn’t overdo it — he’s bashed that point home pretty good already. Instead, I think Obama should provide good answers to the GE’s pressing question about Iraq, Iran and everywhere else in the Middle East:
What now?
And Obama should remain classy.
While Brian (10:26 am) provokes a strong emotional response by saying “McCain is a political whore that will do or say anything to get elected,” the Democrats do NOT need to engage the Republicans in such gutter language.
To be sure, the 527’s — perhaps even McCain’s own surrogates — will try and Swiftboat Barack Obama.
So when that happens, he should NOT go John Kerry on us.
Obama should fight back, quick and often — 18 million Democrats preferred Clinton’s fighting spirit and swagger to his more subdued style.
Obama is wise, astute and, I believe, he will stick to his principles while fighting back.
Hope.
Change.
And fight.
Winning campaign ingredients for the Democrats to re-take the White House.
Bedtime, that is some mighty good writing. I particularly like seeing a helpful proposal on ways Clintonian strengths could reinforce places Obama is good and fill in gaps where he may not be so good. This is partisanship the good way.
Still thinking sympathetic thoughts, too. One suggestion from Mom, reflecting on her own loss two years ago and the passing of the husband of the great couple next door to her recently: in the immediate aftermath (the first few days and weeks) there’s a lot of kind of numb time where you still have energy, even if not much forward ambition of any kind. Use it when you’ve got it to take care of the chores – clearing out things the departed used that you won’t, paperwork, and so on. Later there’ll be more times when you have neither ambition nor energy and grief calls for more rest, and you’ll be glad then of the stuff already done.
I would love to see a little town hall event on national TV where Obama pushed just the right buttons in an every so calm and sophisticated way and drove McShame into one of his angry fits. A few choice words unbleeped for the masses would be nice.
I for one am in favour of a government held state pension under the current system. That is because I believe it barbaric to have people starving on the streets, and the purpose of Social Security is to provide a backup for everyone in the event that all goes wrong. And individual speculation does not provide a safety net. Now I’m all in favour of individual investment beyond that minimum level. But that’s another matter.
Hypocrisy on Obama’s stance on subprime connections
Ha. I had exactly the same thought. If we could get a presidential candidate to acknowledge that a business with one owner and no employees is not, in fact, two people, I would be sorely tempted to vote for him.
Um, I thought that self-employed and non-self-employed folks pay the same SS tax rate; the only difference is that for non-self-employed, half the money is invisibly paid by the employer while half the money is cut out of your check every pay-period. Was I mistaken?
Assuming I’m right, why do you think the government should cut taxes on the self-employed while requiring non-self-employed folk to pay a higher effective rate? I mean, if my employed didn’t have to pay any of a number of taxes relating to my employment, they could give me a larger salary, but then I’d have to pay those taxes so it would be a wash for me.
bedtimeforbonzo,
Very good points, well said.
I would like to see Obama highlight Social Security not as a direct attack on McCain, but to illustrate the fallacy of the GOP talking point that govt. is always bad, that the only good kind of govt. is small and getting smaller, and that privatization is always a good idea.
Hit them hard on how well FDR’s New Deal has held up over the years – and hit them even harder on the privitization of SS which Bush campaigned for in 2004. Point out where we would be today if the GOP had gotten their way and invested Granny’s pension in a market which has been poisoned by mortgage-backed securities. Tie those two millstones together (SS and the housing bust) and hang them around the GOP’s neck.
The other thing I’d like to see is Obama campaigning against the generic GOP brand (to help our downticket candidates) rather than just against McCain. If he pulls it off, Obama could be the first Democratic President since LBJ in 1964 to have some actual coat-tails with which to build a mandate for change in Congress.
The real power struggle next year will be in the Senate, and the success or failure of the next administration’s agenda will be determined there most of all. I think Hillary can be a real champion of the party if she uses her Senate seat to push that agenda, and Obama can help by campaigning for the Democratic brand and not just himself.
Why is this post not about Bobby Knight?
And while I’m at it, before I go for more lying-down type recuperation…
The Republican machine has pushed the idea that “strength” means a particular kind of senselessly pushy aggression and contempt for intelligence. Part of what I like so much about “Stay classy” is that it’s entirely compatible with a different kind of strength – secure, stable, confident in responding but able to make petulant attacks seem, well, kinda childish and dumb. Obama’s responses to criticism have often seemed to me to carry an undercurrent along the lines of “Okay, since you insist, here’s an answer, but meanwhile there’s a real world out there that’s lots more interesting and a future to plan for that’s much more important.”
This has the merit (IMHO) of being true. It’s also a smart tactic, because above all those obsessed with machine-style “strength” feel a very great need not just to be important but to be seen by others as important. The more they feel marginalized, the more likely they are to keep huffing and reveal more of their true colors.
Do you get the feeling that McCain’s campaign got some responses from their “help wanted–blog commenters” request on their website?
Certainly something has brought people out of the woodwork.
Or out from under the bridges.
The talking points aren’t matching the official line for the day (and ObWi isn’t an officially targeted blog). Maybe we’re getting the fruits of a less public effort.
Assuming I’m right
You’re right Turbulence. I’m not sure about the “two person” comment, but mine was aimed at the fact that it is not invisible as you so correctly note is the case when the employer pays 1/2 of s.s. I don’t think even the employee’s half is “tiny;” it’s the difference between making budget or going under each month.
But when the 12.4 percent stares you in the face come tax time and you realize how much better you would be managing the money yourself it gets frustrating. Can someone tell me why investing a third and requiring those that do to eat if if their investments go south would be such a bad thing? If we are concerned about the savings rate, maybe it’s time to up the incentives to save by, say, RAISING the capital gains rate!
Two quick opinions:
1. Bush III has to be a good strategy. You’ve got a very unpopular President and lots of ways to tie McCain to him. How can that be wrong?
2. Stay away from the age issue. Avoid making what seems like a nasty attack, and one which may hurt with older voters. If it’s a real issue voters will figure it out.
But when the 12.4 percent stares you in the face come tax time and you realize how much better you would be managing the money yourself it gets frustrating. Can someone tell me why investing a third and requiring those that do to eat if if their investments go south would be such a bad thing?
How does one require those who make bad investment bets to “eat it” in practice? If you’re living on nothing but SS and your investments go south, then you likely can’t afford to eat. At that point, the government has to step in anyway. There is a huge gaping moral hazard here; how would you propose that we address it? I mean, people on SS already exert political power disproportionate to their numbers, so it seems unlikely that any government can make SS recipients just “eat it”.
Moreover, most people are much worse at investing than they think they are. One could imagine SS enhancements whereby a number of actively managed funds were offered as alternatives, but this introduces new problems: how do you prevent massive corruption associated with giving fund managers access to an asset stream that large? If you try to expand competition by offering many funds, how do you expect people to make reasonable choices between funds? If you try to remedy some of these issues by offering index funds instead, you now have to worry about market distortion imposed when the total fraction of trading dominated by index funds grows so large.
Finally, I’d worry about the larger macroeconomic consequences of dumping this much liquidity into the stock market. The market is not a magical machine that generates arbitrary returns no matter how much money you put into it: there are limits on how much real value the economy can create, and beyond those limits, markets can only produce returns by temporary gamesmanship. See: the housing and credit crisis.
I don’t find any of these objections to be unsurmountable, but they seem challenging enough that I’d require any plan to seriously address them. In other words: come up with a partial SS privatization plan that deals with these issues in a serious way (as opposed to hand waving them all away) and I’d consider supporting it. But given that Bush has never produced ANY plan, I’m not going to hold my breath.
If we are concerned about the savings rate, maybe it’s time to up the incentives to save by, say, RAISING the capital gains rate!
Did you mean lowering the capital gains rate? I don’t understand how raising the cap gains rate would provide non-transient incentives for saving.
Since there’s been… friction here of late, I too wanted to commend bedtimeforbonzo’s post.
The talking points aren’t matching the official line for the day (and ObWi isn’t an officially targeted blog).
Do you think they’d be the slightest bit embarrassed to be accused of astroturfing? Hell, do you think they even know what that means, and why it’s wrong?
Ah, the innocent Hilzoy. Don’t you remember when Tom characterized his blog and commenters as a Mongol Horde?
bcamarda, you don’t recognize the reference. Rohrabacher, in a long and eloquent speech during the energy bill debate asked the climate poobahs if they thought we were all morons out here. It’s worth reading that speech if you want to see why the carbon paradigm is collapsing.
Thanks, Glasater; not as scary here as No Quarter back in the day.
======================================
Since there’s been… friction here of late, I too wanted to commend bedtimeforbonzo’s post.
As far as I’m concerned, anyone who comes here to argue sincerely, in good faith, and without malice is “family”, regardless of our differences.
Bedtimeforbonzo, I’ve never doubted that you fell into that category.
That goes also for all the other folks I’ve been pestering around here lately – I usually don’t respond to bridge-dwellers. If I’ve argued with you, you’re “good people”.
Nice comments, BY and Turb; it is really a matter of which you think is a better vehicle for secure long term growth, the unencumbered efforts of individuals and companies, ie the stock market, or government bonds. You mention a number of interesting objections, Turb, none of which seem to me insurmountable. Tying returns to the ingenuity and effort of individuals and companies is the only way out of this Ponzi Scheme.
====================================
Ah, it’s that infamous Hilzoy–Tom Maguire grudge match that Hilzoy only recently became aware of. (Why am I imagining trolls dressed in butterfly-inspired henchman uniforms?)
“Um, I thought that self-employed and non-self-employed folks pay the same SS tax rate; the only difference is that for non-self-employed, half the money is invisibly paid by the employer while half the money is cut out of your check every pay-period. Was I mistaken?”
No, you’re correct. I especially like the word “invisibly”.
“Assuming I’m right, why do you think the government should cut taxes on the self-employed while requiring non-self-employed folk to pay a higher effective rate?”
I wouldn’t advocate non-self-employed folk paying a higher rate. I’d advocate them paying the same rate and their employers paying the same rate that they are now. I’m advocating having single-owner businesses with no employees pay a lower rate, to foster entrepeneurism and to recognize the idea that I’m not both a person and that person’s employer. There’s a drawback for the single-person business — their total contributions as individuals, in the end, will be lower.
Well, KCinDC, you may well be right, but Hilzoy made it part of the record that she hadn’t read Tom’s piece before writing hers. Check with her about whether or not there is a grudge match.
Well, between the two of them. I’ve got a grudge against many of her commenters, more over at Drum’s site than here. You people are halfway decent.
======================
You people are halfway decent.
All of us halfway decent, or half us all the way decent? From the waist up, or down?
Turb – I should also have mentioned that there are lots of other reasons to give a “break” to the no-employee business. If you’re interested, I’ll go into them.
I’ve learned from you. Very decent of you, well in a halfway sort of way.
========================
LeftTurn – Reasonable viewpoints as always. I guess it’s an “agree to disagree” type of thing, since your counterargument rests on the idea that this year is different, and I don’t have any specific data to back up a claim that it’s not. I do believe, though, that something like misguided conservative idea==>ding ding==>painful electric shock has to occur before peoples’ associations will change, and they’ll abandon the ideas that conservatives have been very effectively pushing for over 30 years. Maybe Obama can win this time without doing it. But it’s going to have to be done at some point.
On the other hand, I have been very impressed with Obama’s counter-punches so far. He hits the right note, sounds the right theme, and, as Bruce said, does it without stooping.
“All of us halfway decent, or half us all the way decent? From the waist up, or down?”
“You’re not half the boy that Nate was. You’re not even half the boy that the top half of Nate was after you cut him in half.”
“So you’re saying that I’m less than a quarter of the boy that Nate was?”
I’m advocating having single-owner businesses with no employees pay a lower rate, to foster entrepeneurism and to recognize the idea that I’m not both a person and that person’s employer. There’s a drawback for the single-person business — their total contributions as individuals, in the end, will be lower.
david, I don’t understand how you might justify this change. Everyone has to pay 15.3%; how you split that between employer and employee is at best a secondary detail. The problems addressed by that tax are no smaller for self-employed folk, so there’s no reason to believe that self-employed folk will draw out only half as much in benefits as employed folk do. What you’re proposing is reducing benefits for everyone so that we charge self-employed people less than their fair share.
I don’t think such a policy would dramatically improve entrepeneurism. since being self-employed for tax purposes has little to do with entrepreneurism per se. Provided there are no major systemic incentives that bias things in one direction (such as what you propose), the two notions align well. However, if you introduce new biases, you will find lots of people transitioning from employed to self-employed overnight while doing exactly the same jobs for the same bosses they did before. If I could get an extra 7.6% simply by quitting my job and having my company hire me as a consultant, I might do that, but that wouldn’t benefit the economy in any way; in fact, it would impose losses from the pointless waste, while sapping the SS trust fund of needed dollars.
Don’t get me wrong, I think it would be awesome if the government created massive tax breaks that were extremely narrowly targeted towards, well, me. If I was self-employed, I might long for a special tax cut for self-employed people. But I don’t think it would be good policy.
Also, I don’t see why you’re calling them no employee business since they seem to have exactly one employee.
david,
Good points and agreed. My intuition is that we have in fact arrived at the metaphorical point of, as you so colorfully put it:
misguided conservative idea==>ding ding==>painful electric shock
To paraphrase Dr. Johnson, the prospect of $6 per gallon gasoline and stagflation concentrate the mind wonderfully. I think that close to half the population is now concentrating, and with a good campaign we should be able to get enough of the rest to win.
As far as the 12.4 per cent for SS is concerned–it comes closer to 15 per cent for self-employed what with medicare added. And individual states can throw a couple of “extras” in that mix.
So with that 15 per cent figure in mind–plus income taxes–then there are state and local taxes–property taxes–you’re starting to talk about some serious coin here.
Plus, Obama is talking about raising the “cap” on SS. How is that little gem going to help the situation.
Thanks to YOU Kim
Turb – Okay. But if they were one-employee businesses, I would call them no-employer businesses ;).
If I’m an actual employer and I hire you at $75,000 a year, what do I pay SS tax on? The $75,000. If I’m the owner of a no-employer business, what do I pay SS tax on? Everything I bring in. I can’t just give myself a paycheck and pay SSN on that. It makes it very difficult to start up a new business and compete effectively against businesses with a lot of capital.
There are other large strains on a no-employer business. Healthcare is one. It’s wildly expensive, because I can’t leverage a group of employees (yes, there are small business “groups”, but the healthcare prices are still comparitively huge ).
The idea is not to get a tax break. The idea is to give a small business a chance to grow. Many of our most successful companies started as one- or two-person enterprises.
I also have no problem with being limited in what I can take out later based on the fact that I didn’t contribute as much.
“If I could get an extra 7.6% simply by quitting my job and having my company hire me as a consultant, I might do that, but that wouldn’t benefit the economy in any way”
Like I said, the idea is to promote growth and entrepreneurial innovation, not to get a tax break.
But to take your idea further — your employer probably also pays things like workers comp. Why do you think your employer prefers to have you as an employee rather than a contractor?
david kilmer: If I’m the owner of a no-employer business, what do I pay SS tax on? Everything I bring in.
Only if you hire a really bad accountant. Speaking as someone who was once, for several years, a one-person self-employed business.
And only if, with your really bad accountant and all, you manage to bring in no more than $90,000 a year: anything over that, and Social Security doesn’t apply.
Jes – True – good point. I should have said “all of my profit”. I can (and do) get exemptions for a lot of the money I put back into the business.
It’s an interesting point you make about accountants. It seems to me that many small businesses keep themselves above water by being… let’s say creative with their tax reporting. It’s sad to me that things need to be that way.
I also wish the ceiling was higher and that there was a reasonable floor.
Healthcare is one. It’s wildly expensive, because I can’t leverage a group of employees (yes, there are small business “groups”, but the healthcare prices are still comparitively huge ).
Sure, but wouldn’t universal healthcare remedy that problem?
The idea is not to get a tax break. The idea is to give a small business a chance to grow. Many of our most successful companies started as one- or two-person enterprises.
Of course. But how do you plan giving small businesses a chance to grow without privileging certain legal arrangements that can be abused by non-small-business?
I’m guessing that you know a lot more about this than I do, but do arrangements like Administaff help any here? They’re a sort of outsourced-H.R. company: small businesses partner with them and gain economies of scale. For example, affiliated businesses can buy into a group healthcare plan using the buying power of a 100,000 person business even if they only have 5 employees. I don’t know how useful they’d be at the very low end (1-2 employees) but they were pretty useful when I worked at a 7 employee company. Certainly, not having to employ someone to deal with lots of stupid little details was worth a lot.
I also have no problem with being limited in what I can take out later based on the fact that I didn’t contribute as much.
OK. Then, can you answer the questions I raised to bc regarding moral hazard? It is all well and good for you to declare that you’re willing to get much less than the cost of living when you retire, but if you can’t survive on that, the government ends up paying anyway, right? Or do you think the government of the future will let you s might, as a side effect, encourage entrepreneurship. imply starve and die? For that matter, if the moral hazard is easy to resolve, why don’t we give everyone, not just the self-employed, the ability to intentionally underfund their SS contributions?
But to take your idea further — your employer probably also pays things like workers comp. Why do you think your employer prefers to have you as an employee rather than a contractor?
For the same reason my wife prefers to be married to me: my spectacular good looks? I.e., we’re both more productive if we lock in terms of our employment relationship due to the fact that human beings are not fully rational. Alternatively, there might be efficiencies of scale that make it worthwhile. I certainly prefer the freedom from paperwork. And while the the company could push that paperwork cost to me by forcing me to become a consultant, it seems that doing so would lower productivity: the time and effort I expend dealing with stupid administrative crap that doesn’t interest me saps time and effort away from useful work.
I agree with the Social Security argument, which is why I found Steve Clemons so disturbing this morning: supposedly Obama’s new economics advisor believes SS has problems and needs reform. The absolute LAST thing any Dem should EVER do is buy into this right-wing meme. Reading that item really scared me. If Obama starts drinking that Kool-Aid, he can kiss the election goodbye, and also do a lot of harm to one of the Dems’ strongest issues.
“Sure, but wouldn’t universal healthcare remedy that problem?”
Depending on the specifics, yes. Let me know when they pass that ;).
“do arrangements like Administaff help any here?”
Administaff (and others) mostly provide a benefit to small businesses with employees. There’s not much to leverage with one person, and you’ve got an extra bill to pay.
My whole point, really, is that it’s prohibitively expensive to take a business from one person to something bigger in a manner that doesn’t involve huge risks. From healthcare to taxes to other sorts of insurance (like E&O) to the expenses of navigating a complex governmental system, it’s nearly Sisyphean. I’m suggesting something simple and (I think) reasonable. A one-person business is one contributor. I believe the deficit in SS collections would not be huge.
“Then, can you answer the questions I raised to bc regarding moral hazard?”
No, I can’t. That’s a good point, and I concede it.
“For the same reason my wife prefers to be married to me: my spectacular good looks?”
Let me put it another way. Let’s say the government treated single-person businesses like one SS contributor. Do you believe that would tip the balance, making the situation more profitable for your employer and you (as a whole) to have you be a contractor? If so, why do you think that?
My whole point, really, is that it’s prohibitively expensive to take a business from one person to something bigger in a manner that doesn’t involve huge risks. From healthcare to taxes to other sorts of insurance (like E&O) to the expenses of navigating a complex governmental system, it’s nearly Sisyphean. I’m suggesting something simple and (I think) reasonable. A one-person business is one contributor. I believe the deficit in SS collections would not be huge.
I sympathize: it must be extremely painful to navigate that world on your own. But to be fair here, SS isn’t the main problem. The main problems are that employee-subsidized healthcare systems suck and that the legal and tax environments for running small businesses are way too complex. Giving self-employed folk an SS cut won’t materially alter either of those problems.
Let me put it another way. Let’s say the government treated single-person businesses like one SS contributor. Do you believe that would tip the balance, making the situation more profitable for your employer and you (as a whole) to have you be a contractor? If so, why do you think that?
I’m not sure what you mean by “treating single-person businesses as one SS-contributor”. If you mean doing what they do right now, then there’s no incentive for me to become a contractor. But if you mean charging self-employed folk 7.6% instead of 15.2%, then yes, I probably would switch, even though it would be a huge pain in the neck because I could get the company to pay me the 7.6% they would otherwise be paying directly to the government. Getting a 7% raise would motivate me a great deal in fact.
How does one require those who make bad investment bets to “eat it” in practice?
That’s a legit question. 401(k) admins are limiting choices but still using the market. That’s one option. plus, not all is subject to the market.
how do you prevent massive corruption associated with giving fund managers access to an asset stream that large? How does California and Alaska do it for their retirement funds?
Did you mean lowering the capital gains rate?
I was being sarcastic. I am trying to understand why Obama wants to raise the rate. Being prepared for retirement is so much more than just having ss and a pension. Being out of debt for one, or having non-retirement savings.
Thanks, Anarch.
And thanks, Bruce.
I find, despite only getting four hours of sleep (again) last night, I have a lot more energy today and my mind is more clear-headed (but much, much less so since I started writing this, at work, a couple of hours ago, before this final edit). That said, I am bracing myself for the inevitable “crash.”
Insomnia — a malady I fought even before my recent loss — is a bitch. As someone who operates best w/ a solid 8 hours of sleep, one or two weeks of getting half that is dangerous.
In 1991, I was diagnosed as a bi-polar manic depressive — and when I fail to get the requisite rest, I find myself battling all kinds of demons.
I truly appreciate reading words of encouragement from you and my new-found friends on ObWi. I am finding out the true meaning of the term “web community.”
Nothing will fully compensate for the loss of a loved one. But, in the end, compassion, guidance, wisdom and someone willing to listen is more, much more, than one can hope for.
I don’t want to become obsessed w/ death — and I beg your pardon, whoever dislikes a blogger going entirely off-topic like this — but it is fascinating that our society avoids the subject as much as possible, almost as if the subject itself were taboo.
A quick story:
Only two or three days after CoCo’s demise, my wife asked if she could throw away my late dog’s toys, of which there many, all tucked behind the big-screen TV in our den in the basement. Throw away CoCo’s toys already? How dare her?
“Sure, honey,” I mumbled as if I didn’t care, not wanting to sound unmanly.
A few minutes later, I saw her walk by w/ one of those big, green Glad trash bags, filled to the brim. Boy, CoCo had even more toys than I thought and now they were in a big, green Glad trash bag, soon to be in our big blue trash can.
Later that night, in an act of defiance, desperation — I’m not sure what to call it — I went out back when I knew my wife wouldn’t notice and retrieved the Glad trash bag and picked through it. What to keep? Geez, there were a couple dozen of stinky stuffed animals.
No problem: I picked CoCo’s favorite — a duck that long ago had lost the ability to quack (the squeaky thing was always the first thing to go when my Golden Retriever mix got a hold of a new toy she really liked). The duck had no head, that went long ago, too. But it had two feet and a tail, and that was enough.
And every time CoCo wanted to engage me in a game of fetch or tug-of-war in the basement, invariably, she would pick through all of the nicer stuff and come out w/ a duck that couldn’t quack and had no head. I loved it.
So that duck now rests in our small, secondary shed that holds really only one thing of importance, the lawn mower. I have put one of the shed’s cabinets to good use, joining the duck are four discolored tennis balls that I rounded up from the backyard. Joining them was a prayer card from my Uncle Bob’s recent viewing. And finally, tucked behind the duck was a fifth of Old Grand Dad. Surely, there will be times when that has to be replaced.
Someday I will share this crazy story w/ my 9-year-old son. He will understand — we have a better connection on many things (baseball, ice cream, old trucks, A&W Root Beer) that my wonderful wife (who, trust me, means well) couldn’t give a hoot about.
Again, thanks for your indulgence, dear fellow bloggers.
Back to this post:
LeftTurn, as usual, you make salient points. (By the way, your historical references always enlighten and/or impress me.)
And as a Clinton (now Obama) supporter, I agree:
Obama — as probably would not have been the case w/ Clinton — could provide the coat tails that our party needs to help our downticket candidates.
Finally:
Now that Sen. Clinton is out of the race — and has given a full and heart-felt endorsement of Sen. Obama — I figure the discussion will soon turn to the VP selection.
Mark Warner already seems to be getting a lot of play in the MSM as an Obama running mate — and, if that is a trial balloon his campaign has floated, I would say they have gotten a positive response.
Warner would be terrific and give the Democrats a great chance to win Virgina.
So would Sen. Jim Webb.
Gov. Ed Rendell would deliver Pennsylvania but, taking him at his word, his heart does not seem to be in the VP spot. As he has said, he prefers being his own boss. I like his honesty.
Don’t discount Sen. Biden from my home state of Delaware.
Biden has loads of foreign policy experience and he would add gravitas to the ticket.
VP?
Any thoughts?
My understanding is that in practice, VP candidates don’t actually do any of the stuff they’re supposed to when it comes to swinging this voting bloc or that. In any event, it seems to me like the priority for the next president right at the moment is getting a VP that he’s comfortable working with, who will support his administrative efforts fully, and who will help in the ugly, necessary work of rolling back executive power gone mad.
“I sympathize: it must be extremely painful to navigate that world on your own.”
Please, no sympathy. It’s completely my choice, and I’m aware of the down-sides. I will likely go out of business, but if I do, I will consider it my own failing.
“But to be fair here, SS isn’t the main problem.”
Absolutely true. But giving a tax break to single-person businesses is simpler and easier to implement. And the 7.6% makes a huge difference. I’m all for fixing the other stuff.
“I’m not sure what you mean by “treating single-person businesses as one SS-contributor”.”
In a regular employment situation, there are two contributors: the employee and the employer. I’m suggesting treating a single person business as one of those for purposes of SS.
“But if you mean charging self-employed folk 7.6% instead of 15.2%, then yes, I probably would switch”
Assuming your employer would agree to that. In most peoples’ cases, the employer wouldn’t. My question is basically this: If the single-person business got the tax break, would employers find it financially advantageous to start offering employees contractor relationships? And would employees in significant numbers find this arrangement financially advantageous enough to take it? If so, what makes you think that?
There’s really no need to answer that, though, Turb. I already feel like we’re hijacking the thread.
bedtimeforbonzo – I’m BP as well, and I understand totally about the sleep thing. Sleep deprivation is probably the number two biggest factor in destabilizing mood (There are studies somewhere on that). So I’m really hoping you find a way to get some regular sleep.
The number one factor in destabilizing mood is probably sudden loss (death of a loved one, divorce, losing your job, etc.). I’ve found that one can easily lead to another. And all of them lead to isolation, which is the worst kind of negative feedback loop.
So I hope you’re getting support from your wife and family (though from some of your comments, I fear that you’re not), and I’m glad you’re finding comfort in the people here. If you ever need to talk, feel free to e-mail me (there’s a link on the About page of my blog).
bedtime: again, lots of sympathy flowing in your general direction. The death of anyone you love is horrible, whatever the species.
I’m glad you saved the duck.
The one time a dog of mine ever died, her sister survived her, and was absolutely inconsolable. Being single, I could do whatever seemed right regardless of how it might look to anyone else, so I moved the mattress into the kitchen (couldn’t let her into the bedroom; my house was partitioned at that time, so that she wouldn’t kill the cats), and slept there for a little over a week. This did me as much good as it did her.
*hugs*
David:
Thank you for your support and wise words. Being BP I don’t know nearly enough about the disease — this, despite seeing a shrink for 17 years.
Shrinks . . .
A necessary evil.
Don’t get me wrong, I like my guy, and at one time, we became too close: buddies who would go to ballgames and things. But I’ve learned that shrinks don’t “talk things out” with you (which I’ve felt I needed many times these past 17 years). They prescribe pills and pills and more pills, which I know I need — and couldn’t live a sane life without.
Still . . .
Everything you said hit home. Also, when I am tired and unsteady, I feel crying jags coming on, like when I read your post (and, of course, we do everything possible to hold them back in public, which is absolutely necessary, and, hence, my need to always have a couple Klonopin in my pocket).
Reading your words, knowing the truth in them, made me feel weak, yet strong. It’s nice knowing when you have someone in your corner.
Hilzoy:
Hugs back to you, and thanks for your story.
P.S. That duck ain’t going nowhere.
One last thought:
This site is terrific for strong, passionate debate on politics, and sometimes I’ve found, popular culture. A lot of agreeing and, it seems, even more disagreeing goes on.
That’s what makes this site great.
But what makes it greater, I’ve discovered, is that Obsidian Wings has a very, very big heart.
Good night.
Kim says “Yes, publius, you must think we are morons. You eliminate risk, and you eliminate reward. What a great way to fund retirement. Do you see why the Fund is rapidly approaching insolvency?”
Kim, you are apparently unaware of why the fund is approaching insolvency. Reagan (yes, the hero of the right) increased the payroll tax (yes, a regressive tax) to help fund social security into the future. So we’ve all been paying extra in for over 20 years, but under Bush they started using the surplus for other things (or basically just to make the deficit look smaller). Medicare is a different issue–Bush made that worse too, with the unfunded drug benefit.
And as to the old platitude of how the market “always” does better over time, in the first place it depends on over which time interval, and in the second, some economists think this may not be true going forward for quite some time. There have been long periods of essentially no increase in the past. You eliminate risk and you not only eliminate possible reward, you eliminate possible disaster. Risk has two sides.
Look, dnfree, a dozen years ago Paul Krugman said the Social Security System was in crisis. Please don’t give me that carp.
===============================
Regarding McCain and age — it IS an effective attack. But it’s not one Obama needs to explicitly make, or even make obliquely.
That attack will take care of itself. You don’t have to make the case that McCain is old — he’s [i]old[/i]. He looks old and worn out at his own rallies.
The most effective “Age-based” attack on McCain will be side-by-side comparisons of speechs and the debates. Obama doesn’t have to do anything, and that attack will hit over and over again.
(Although I’m not sure you can call it an ‘attack’ if it’s just McCain sitting around being 70ish next to Obama being an energetic 40ish).
Do you think we are all morons out here?
Not all of you, no.
It’s a campaign slogan, doc. For whom I’m not sure.
======================
To clarify: Kim, we think that some of you repeating long-disproven falsehoods are morons, others simply malicious children, some moral idiots in the sense of lacking any real awareness of right or wrong, and some paid staffers or volunteer associates of organizations interested in advancing Republican causes dishonestly. We recognize a wide range of reasons someone may feel comfortable spewing falsehoods in calculatedly disruptive manners, and would hate to pigeonhole any of you prematurely.
The people who most suffer from the actions of trolls like yourself are of course the honest conservatives. The more often their views are associated lies and malice, the harder it is for them to get an honest hearing. But you presumably don’t care, in that they tend to be apostate these days anyway.
I hear a lot more trash talking than refutation of ‘long-disproven falsehoods’. What ya got?
============================
“But what makes it greater, I’ve discovered, is that Obsidian Wings has a very, very big heart.”
It’s of a young boy, and Hilzoy keeps it in a jar on her desk. (™Robert Bloch.)
DNFTT.
Okay, does anyone else want that carp I was going to give to Kim?
Steamed grass carp, with a splash of soy sauce and some finely chopped fresh ginger, then sprinkled with minced scallions, is truly one of the greatest dishes in history. So, um, sure!
Special note to Gary:
A very, very big heart and a very, very special sense of humor:)
TG
Off to work before I am late for my 1-9. Cheers.
but under Bush they started using the surplus for other things (or basically just to make the deficit look smaller)
I don’t think this started under Bush; it’s been a problem for longer than that.
And that problem would be somewhat averted with private accounts, wouldn’t it? The gov’t couldn’t use money assigned to a specific person thereby making the budget process more transparent?
And here’s my main problem with social security: it was never intended to be the sole source of income in retirement yet it is for 40% of retirees. Why? Are our incentives not enough to save before retirement? Why not? It is essentially becoming a national pension system rather than a safety net. I know there are some that cannot save much during their working years, but too many rely on it exclusively through choices they make. And when many draw far more than the sum of their contributions and interest, we have a problem.
bc, the personal choice not to save is one thing, and the completely changed retirement environment is another. I’d like to be able to retire, but within the past two years both my husband’s company and mine have terminated their pension plans. So that’s money we thought we would have in retirement that has evaporated. The “three legs” of the retirement stool are all wobbly. Pension plans have gone away or been diminished, even for those already retired; 401(k) plans have failed to gain much over the past ten years or so; social security has to be changed in some way. Roth IRA’s only came along recently, and for those of us my age, the more generous tax deductions for children came along just after our children were grown. While we were raising our children, we were getting the same $600 a year per child tax deduction that my father got for me. Oh, yeah, and the increase in medical costs….I’m just going to keep working as long as I can, until my job is moved somewhere else.
“And here’s my main problem with social security: it was never intended to be the sole source of income in retirement yet it is for 40% of retirees. Why? Are our incentives not enough to save before retirement? Why not? It is essentially becoming a national pension system rather than a safety net.”
You seem to have the bizarre assumption in this that everyone is middle class, and has the ability to “save before retirement,” and that if they don’t, it’s because the “incentives” aren’t right.
Millions of Americans’ don’t “retire.” They don’t have careers. They don’t have jobs much of the time, and some don’t at all, because they have medical conditions, they’re disabled, they’re homemakers, they’re not in a mental state where working is an option, and on and on run the reasons. They are poor, and that’s why they are in the underclass, and thus live entirely different lives than the middle class, lives clearly invisible to most Americans, who somehow assume that everyone’s lives are middle-class, and who seem to have little clue that for millions of us, it just isn’t so, for one reason or another.
It’s not a matter of choices; it’s a matter of lack of choices.
And me, I’m for Milton Friedman’s negative income tax, despite problematic aspects. But every idea has problematic aspects; the question is whether the trade-offs are worth it. I very much think we still need a lot of social services — differently structured, more efficient, social services, to be sure, but I think the NIT should be part of the mix. We almost had it under Nixon, but it disappeared down the memory hole of the Reagan era, never to be seen again; I’d like to see it hauled out and looked at anew, as part of the discussion of what America should be doing in the 21st century.
poverty.
That was 2004, and it’s only gotten worse. This is also America. The apparently invisible America, to most middle-class folks.
Please to release my kidnapped comment. Thanks.
The 11:04 comment was by me, the one held for alleged s p a m.
McCain thinks Putin is the President of Germany.
This is not a mistake that could cause as much trouble as mixing up Sunni and Shi’ite, but it’s also damned bizarre: thinking Angela Merkel is the President of Germany would be forgiveable, but Vladimir Putin?
It’s easy to get confused about Merkel and Putin. He speaks German fluently and she does Russian 😉