social security

There is a fight going on in the nation's capital. Congress and the White House are fighting over whether or not to raise the national debt ceiling. It appears to be yet another partisan argument, but the outcomes could consist of Social Security and other payments could be defaulted on if the debt ceiling isn't elevated. With a rise, the government will be able to take out even more personel loans. 

Congress to give up Fourth of July break to work on debt issue 

The national debt ceiling, or the credit limit of the U.S. federal government, is one of the biggest issues being considered right now. There is no way for the government to exceed $14.3 trillion right now. That number was reached in May, as reported by Reuters. Yet the government has been making expenses on it through last-minute measures. 

Increasing the debt limit is something the Congressional Republicans don't want to do. They want the fiscal policies to change first. To be able to keep working on the debt ceiling, the traditional week-long recess after the Fourth of July will not be taken by the Senate, Senate Majority leader Harry Reid Leader told CBS. Before August 4, it has to be elevated. That is the deadline. 

Warnings issued against default 

There have been warnings about what will take place without the debt ceiling being elevated although there's a month to get an agreement put in place still. Standard & Poor's has cautioned the maturing U.S. Treasury bonds would get a "D" rating if the bonds aren't paid by August 4 on top of the issues the global financial market would face. About $30 billion in interest payments will be due through Treasury bond sales for the U.S. Sheila Bair is a Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation Chairman. She said surely it is a "dangerous game" Congress is playing, according to NASDAQ.

Potential fallout in suit of default 

The American federal government is presently borrowing 40 cents of every dollar it spends, and in August of 2011 alone, the federal government is slated to spend $134 billion more than it will take in, according to USA Today. The government may not be able to make all of its expenses. It could miss up to 44 percent of them. Probably the most vulnerable citizens could possibly be hit hard very soon with the expenses even though it seems like a faraway issue to a few. Social Security expenses to retirees, disability benefits, Medicare and Medicaid benefits and other forms of social aid such as welfare and food stamps may go unfunded. Federal employees may also be furloughed and contractors, including defense contractors, may go unpaid or have their contracts cancelled. 

On August 3, the $23 billion payment for SSDI, or SSDI, and Social Security will not be paid. Social Security represents 50 percent or more of all income for 53 percent of all couples aged 65 or older and 73 percent of all individuals over the age of 65.

Articles cited 

Reuters 

reuters.com/article/2011/06/30/us-usa-debt-sandp-idUSTRE75S5GV20110630 

CBS News 

cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20075723-503544.html?tag=cbsnewsSectionContent.5 

NASDAQ 

nasdaq.com/aspx/stock-market-news-story.aspx?storyid=201106301552dowjonesdjonline000613&title=fdics-bairwarns-against-getting-too-close-to-debt-ceiling-deadline 

USA Today 

usatoday.com/money/perfi/retirement/2011-06-28-debt-limit-impasse-Congress-Obama-Social-Security_n.htm 

Social Security Administration 

ssa.gov/pressoffice/basicfact.htm

Government grows. Deficits balloon. Whether we have a Democrat or a Republican in the White House, the story continues. The Era of Big Government is not over.

Why?

Isn’t the Republican Party supposed to be the party of free enterprise and smaller government? How then did we get the Americans with Disabilities Act, expanded Medicare, the Transportation Security Administration, No Child Left Behind, and massive bailouts with a Republican president on duty?

We have been corrupted, that’s how. And the liberals like it that way. Welfare is not limited to the poor. Nearly everyone is on some type of government social program: public schools, public colleges, Medicare, Social Security, farm subsidies… Republicans are on welfare too. When nearly everyone is on the dole, there is no special interest for small government. Only ideologues make the case for the Constitution.

Of course, some people are net taxpayers, but who? It is not easy to tell, given the incredible complexity of the welfare state. Moreover, net taxpayers will often cling to their government benefits as a matter of getting their money’s worth.

We might be able to climb out of this trap through clarity. Instead of focusing on tax cuts (which we cannot afford) and spending cuts (which we cannot legislate), we might focus on simplicity and clarity. Let’s start with the biggest federal program: Social Security Insurance. Replace it with free money for seniors and you keep the safety net which keeps grandmas off the street while at the same time you make it clear to the upper middle class that they need to return to traditions of self-responsibility. Currently, the upper middle class is getting a raw deal with Social Security, but they still get a benefit payment that is a function of taxes paid in. SSI still looks like a property right, an entitlement fit for a Republican. Replace SSI with a simple age-based payment and it becomes more clear who is a net taxpayer.

We might do something about other retirement programs as well. Maybe soldiers should be given 401(k) contributions instead of pensions. Teachers and professors at state run schools and colleges should definitely be given 401(k) plans, and those plans should allow individual stock picking. Anyone too irresponsible to manage their own retirement account has no business teaching our children.

I’ll try not to be as “doom and gloom” as I want to be. But I’ll allow myself one uber-pessimistic sentence to vent. Here we go: The shortsighted dummies in Washington now seem dead-set on sticking their dirty little hands into my wallet once again, this time to nationalize 401(k) plans as a quick cash grab to fund their agenda, and we’ll all suffer because of it. Ok. Technically it was a run-on sentence, but I had a lot to say and only one sentence to say it!

Our generation has witnessed an unprecedented growth in the size of government. It’s tentacles now touch every part of our lives. From regulation of traditionally private enterprises to administering and funding health care, we’re left to wonder where will the growth stop. Well apparently the Democrats in Washington want to keep pushing the envelope. Their latest grab is 401(k) retirement plans.

For all you young adults out there – just because I said retirement doesn’t mean you get to stop reading. This affects us now.

First, some explanation. In February the White House released its “Annual Report on the Middle Class” in Obama’s new Middle Class Task Force laid out ways to improve retirement security. Currently most workers join a 401(k) in which they pay a certain amount of their salary into a tax deferred investment vehicle that allows them to save for retirement. Advantages include: the employee gets to choose the type of investment and risk level, the money is contributed before it is taxed so you save on taxes, and many employers will match what you put in.

Enter the Democrats governing mantra: “Anything the private sector can do we can do better. We can do anything better than you.” To that end the Middle Class Task Force recommended:

“The creation of Guaranteed Retirement Accounts (GRAs), which would give workers a simple way to invest a portion of their retirement savings in an account that was free of inflation and market risk, and in some versions under discussion, would guarantee a specified real return above the rate of inflation.”

Sounds wonderfully benign when you describe it like that. It’s kind of like saying, the public option would have provided patients with more health care choices. Unfortunately, the reality is much different.

Supporters of the GRA have already testified before Congress with proposals to eliminate the favorable tax treatment afforded to 401(k) plans. Government run GRAs would be there to pick up the slack. How they would do that is explained in another government document – a “Request for Information” regarding the “annuitization” of 401(k) plans issued by the Department of the Treasury.

The problem with Americans, as suggested by the Treasury document, is that they aren’t good at saving. They complain that the vast majority of people take their 401(k) earnings in a lump sum once they reach retirement age. Democrats don’t like this idea. Apparently they disapprove of how people spend their money. They say that the only way to make sure people spend wisely is to convince/force them into an annuity providing monthly payments rather than a lump sum. Paternalism at its worst.

All this is bad, but why should young adults be concerned? The answer…just take a look at Social Security. Social Security is a government run retirement plan which everyone pays into. Just take a look at your last paycheck (if you’re lucky enough to have one in this economy) and you’ll notice that you were forced to contribute a substantial amount to Social Security. You’d like to think that this money would be going to a trust fund saved up for when you retire. You’d be wrong. In actuality the Social Security trust fund is a drawer full of IOUs from the federal government.

In a slick budgetary move, designed to make their bottom line look better, the government takes the money paid into Social Security, spends the funds on government programs, while not counting the borrowed money against the deficit. Brilliant! Until you realize that our generation is going to be on the hook for all of this mismanagement.

If GRAs are passed we should expect to see the same thing. The government is seriously hard up for cash. If they were a college student they would be living off ramen and Busch Light. To alleviate this money problem in the short term the government could spend the money currently sitting in retirement accounts, toss out some more IOUs, and defer payment for the GRA annuities for a few decades.

This is the culture that young adults must fight against. The idea that anything goes in the effort to boost today’s bottom line – even if it may cost the next generation trillions. Such short-sightedness must come to an end. Politicians must be made to understand that what matters is what benefits us in the long term not them in the short term. And frankly, our generation already has enough on its plate. Trillion dollar deficits as far as the eye can see. A national debt that doubles in five years and triples in ten. $76 trillion in unfunded government entitlement liabilities. We simply cannot afford to pay for the nation’s retirement as well.

Alright I know I promised I wouldn’t be “doom and gloom.” There really wasn’t a way around it. We’re faced with problems that Washington is refusing to acknowledge even exist. It’s enough to make me want to move, to try and run away from our government’s profligacy. I’ve always wanted to spend some time in Europe!…oh wait.

by Brandon Greife, Political Director of the College Republican National Committee

Newt Gingrich and John C. Goodman list Ten GOP Health Ideas for Obama.  There's really too much to excerpt, so you'll have to read the whole thing for yourself.

My initial take: Some of these are very good ideas, some are less appealing.  But whatever their individual merits, it's hard to see an overarching "vision thing" in the proposals. It is tinkering.  Perhaps good tinkering, but it lacks a structural narrative that makes it easier to sell these as a package.

The GOP needs a much more comprehensive approach to entitlements in general, not just health care.  At this point, I think we need to do one of two things: Either....

• Government as a Last Resort - Government can insure everybody for any yearly expenses over 20% of annual income, which completely eliminates the problem of unbearable costs, both for consumers and for insurers (and which ought to dramatically lower insurance costs, since the potential risk is far smaller).   That shouldn't have a major distortive effect on the market, either, because most catastrophic costs tend to be things about which we can't/don't often make good cost/benefit calculations.  This would also eliminate the need for Medicare/Medicaid, since this would automatically cover people who have little/no income. While there are undoubtedly problems with this, it seems on the whole better than a system that gets government involved at much lower decision and cost levels.  Or...
• Government as a Safety Net - Restructure our entitlement system along the lines of what (if I recall correctly) Milton Friedman and Charles Murray have recommended: expand the EITC to cover basic costs of living on a means-tested basis, so we can predicate entitlements upon actual need, rather than blanket distribution.

In either case, I think you have a pretty strong, compelling message: Government should provide a safety net, not a straitjacket.  We are not going to let people fail completely, but safety nets should not catch people who do not fall.

These options would allow Republicans to strengthen the safety net for people who genuinely need it, while making the program more sustainable by removing the "safety net" for people who don't actually need one.  Importantly, this would also eliminate the "third rail" problem of entitlements, and we could actually begin making better cost/benefit decisions about them.

To paraphrase Sarah Palin, “How’s that hopey changey thing workin’ out for ya?” Mr ‘No family making less than 250,000.00 dollars will see a tax increase’.. ad nauseum. Now Mr Presidential Chameleon has come up with another mind-torturing shape change. Our wonderful leader has discovered that he is ‘AGNOSTIC’ to tax increases for the “middle class”, whatever his definition of that may be this week.

Our nouveau deficit hawk is fresh from his most recent bi-partisan entrapment attempt, complaining that the Republicans didn’t want to come out and play. Obama was seeking political cover for his latest money pig-out, asking for EIGHTY BILLION dollars for ‘jobs’. If you’re a Democrat you know you’re in trouble when one of your own statist media organs (AP) looks at your ‘jobs’ bill and says it won’t create many jobs.

Knowing that the Democrats were only too happy to set them up as being the party of ‘NO’, the Republicans neatly sidestepped the ploy. The ‘tax’ cut provisions of the bill were something that would only appeal to someone who had never worked in the private sector, run a company or had to make a payroll. Therein lies the rub for Obama’s administration. There simply is no one to tell them ‘heck no’, it just doesn’t work like that. Few, if any, people in the White House have ever held a private sector job and have little understanding of the economic engines that actually drive job growth.

Harry Reid Speaks To The Media After Scrapping The Bipartisan Jobs Bill

Other provisions in the bill are more transportation make-work union paybacks, and possibly the only part of the proposed legislation that may have validity, further extensions of unemployment benefits for those who have been unable to find work. With a stagnant economy there are approximately six job seekers for every job out in the private sector. The only job growth has been in the public (government) sector which has a direct negative effect on private sector job growth.

Along with the tax increases, the administration is seeking cuts in spending for entitlement programs such as Social Security and Medicare… sure to be an extremely unpopular issue with the country’s seniors. A huge voting block that up to this point had been reliably Democrat.

Of course, a REALLY courageous leader and his party could find much of that money by removing many of the multi-layered and redundant agencies and bureaucracies which glut our government, and by reducing the truly insane regulatory burden being placed on American business. Naturally, that would probably make too much sense. As would CUTTING TAXES. It’s easy, Obama. You want to create jobs? LOTS of jobs? CUT TAXES.

Semper Vigilans, Semper Fidelis

© Skip MacLure 2010

Harry Truman was full of good quotes. Two of my favorite: “If you want a friend in Washington get a dog” and “I never give them hell. I just tell the truth and they think it’s hell.” Representative Paul Ryan (R-WI) can likely sympathize with Truman – because he’s givin’ Democrats hell and it isn’t making him many friends.

He’s recently charted a course, determined to change the image of the GOP from “an opposition party to being the alternative party.” As he recently told the New York Times,

“[T]he problem in the minority [is that] you sometimes revert into a posture where ‘I don’t have to do anything controversial, I just can be against that and win by default.’ I’m not interested in winning by default.”

Sometimes the truth is tough to swallow. Unlike many in Washington, Rep. Ryan backs up his words with action. His sweeping Roadmap for America’s Future is a comprehensive reform package that stands in sharp contrast to the crushing budget President Obama unveiled last week. Although, as he never forgets to remind us, he didn’t get us completely into this mess, his budget didn’t exactly provide a plan to get out of it.

The problem is deep and multi-faceted, a combination of bloated entitlements, an aging population, and an ever-growing bureaucracy. There’s the iceberg and we’re headed right for it. Obama’s budget does nothing to turn the steering wheel, instead choosing to slam on the accelerator. Under the president’s plan spending will top $4 trillion in the upcoming year, the nation’s debt will double in five years, and triple in ten. In just the 10th year of Obama’s budget the federal government will be spending nearly $1 trillion a year on interest alone. In other words…we’re sunk.

Ryan’s plan is comprehensive, tackling everything from health care reform, the tax code, Medicare, and Social Security. I don’t dare to it injustice by attempting to explain it in its entirety, but here are some key points of the Roadmap:

• Freeze all discretionary spending except national defense and veteran’s health care for five years
• Simplify the income tax code by creating a two-tiered flat tax – 10% for incomes up to $100,000 and 25% on higher incomes
• Replace corporate income taxes, currently the world’s second highest, with a corporate consumption tax of 8.5% – about half the tax burden other nations place on average
• Overhaul Medicare to give seniors premium support through vouchers for private insurance in order to draw more people into the market and eliminate hidden subsidies
• Index the retirement age for Social Security to today’s lengthened life-expectancy
• Make the tax cuts of 2001 and 2003 permanent

After implementing these changes you are left with a streamlined federal government, a solution to the economic crisis, and all without the burden of huge tax increases. But the Roadmap for America’s Future is greater than the sum of its parts. It represents a wholesale change in philosophy for a government growing more unwieldy by the day. As captured by the Washington Post’s Michael Gerson,

“[I]t represents an alternative political philosophy. . . For decades, culminating in the Obama health reform proposal, Democrats have attempted to build a political constituency for the welfare state by expanding its provisions to larger and larger portions of the middle class. Ryan proposes a federal system that focuses on helping the poor, while encouraging the middle class to take more personal responsibility in a dynamic economy. It is the appeal of security vs. the appeal of independence and enterprise.

The results of this alternative philosophy are astounding. The CBO, who analyzed the Roadmap, said

“The lower budget deficits under your proposal would result in much less federal debt than under the alternative fiscal scenario and thereby a much more favorable macro-economic outlook. . . The Roadmap would put the federal budget on a sustainable path, generating an annual budget surplus of about 5 percent of GDP by 2080.”

Words may not do justice. To understand the plan’s real impact, simply take a glimpse into the future comparing the proposed Democratic budgets and the Republican alternative:

This is our generation’s future we’re talking about. This is our chance to actually  receive the benefits of programs such as Medicare and Social Security that we are paying in to. This is the opportunity to avert a fiscal course in which we face tax increases simply so that our government can make interest payments on its debt. Moreover, we will play an important role in this fight because it is shaping up to be a generational struggle. Seniors, even conservative seniors, will view this as a threat to Medicare and Social Security. But those programs, which are already facing a $500 billion cut in the Democratic health bill, are insolvent as they currently stand. We have no hope of seeing benefits if the status quo remains. So we must make our voices heard on the issue. After all, the plan is entitled Roadmap for America’s Future, and we, College Republicans, are America’s future.

- Brandon Greife, Political Director of the College Republican National Committee

Today brings another example of how spending in Washington is dangerously out of control. With the national debt approaching $12.135 trillion, and the Treasury Department having to use "extraordinary accounting tools" to allow an extra $150 billion in debt so Social Security checks can continue to be issued and the federal government can keep its doors open, it is time our elected officials in Washington be held accountable. They just don’t get it.

They must be stopped from increasing the debt ceiling by another $290 billion – as is being proposed now – and instead must make cuts to the federal budget. When a family of 4 hits hard times, they learn to make sacrifices – not sign up for a new credit card. Our government needs to watch and learn from the hard-working folks across our country and stop this mentality of "spend-our-way-to-prosperity." The bailouts, the stimulus packages, the pork and pet projects, and the ever-increasing size of the federal government must be put to a stop.

When I am elected to represent the good people of Tennessee, I will vote for a balanced budget, and I will do everything in my power to make certain that the size and reach of the federal government decreases each year I am there. It's time to bring common sense budget principles to the United States Congress.

To learn more about me, please visit: www.chuckforcongress.com

Follow me on Twitter: @chuck4congress

Picture the scene: a fairly popular President, having amassed a significant amount of political capital, decides its time to cash in and spend some on a tough reform effort for a failing, inadequate system. Many Americans agree that the status quo isn't acceptable long-term but hesitate to sign on to changes that they deem too risky. Members of Congress go out to their districts and are confronted at town hall meetings with frustrated, vocal constituents worried about the risks of the plan. The President's popularity outpaces his policies and in particular, this major reform package. Even with control of both houses of Congress, the package can't survive. The reform fails.

If you feel like you've seen this story before, you're not wrong. The trajectory of the 2009 health care debate seems eerily similar to that of the 2005 battle for Social Security reform. Taking a look at the polling from then and comparing it to the data of today shows the parallels in the situation and shows why the health care debate feels all too familiar.

Similarity #1: Presidential Popularity

First, take a look at a bit of a throwback post from 2006 at MysteryPollster.com where Bush's job approval from January 2005 forward is tracked. Bush began 2005 with job approval over 50% - slightly below where Obama started at the beginning of July (Gallup's 7/05-07/2009 poll had Obama at 56%). The trends are not dissimilar: Charles Franklin's plot of Bush job numbers from January 05 forward shows a similar shrinking of support that looks an awful lot like the Obama job approval chart on the front page. This isn't a particularly surprising finding, but provides context to the other more striking comparisons.

Similarity #2: The Agreement that the Status Quo is Unacceptable

In both the Social Security debate and the health care debate, Americans agree: the system needs major overhaul. While so many other issues fail to get Americans to agree with the crucial "we need to do something" sentiment, both Social Security and health care had that extra boost from a public that agreed: maintaining the current system is not workable long term. In February 2005, Gallup found 73% of Americans said Social Security was "in crisis" or "has major problems". (18% said Social Security was "in crisis").

Compare that to the health care debate of today. Gallup has found that 20% of Americans believe health care is "in crisis" and at least a majority believe it has major problems (unfortunately, Gallup doesn't tell us how large a majority). To flesh that out a bit, Gallup asked the question in November 2008 and found 73% of respondents said that health care was either "in crisis" or had "major problems". Does that number sound familiar?

Similarity #3: Issue Handling

By March 2005, Bush's numbers on issue handling of Social Security were brutal, with an ABC/WaPo poll showing only 35% approving and 56% disapproving. CNN/Gallup had even worse news with only 1 out of 3 approving. Compared to 49% approval shortly after Bush took office, once the issue became a hot topic, Bush's number tanked.

Similarly, Obama's numbers have plummeted on health care since before the debate. In April, during Obama's honeymoon, Pew showed Obama with a 51-26 advantage on health care job approval. By August, he had a 42-43 disadvantage - quite the fall from the earlier numbers. The idea that "the president is more popular than his policies" held true then as it does now. (Just take a look at Mara Liasson's February 2005 NPR story, titled: "Bush More Popular that His Social Security Plan").

In both cases, the President began his administration with the trust and support of the people to fix their given "crisis". In both cases, once the debate flared, their numbers dropped significantly. But it is worthwhile to point out that the comparison is not perfect - the Obama honeymoon numbers were immediately followed by the debate, while Bush had a full four years before tackling Social Security.

At any rate, this is just the basic side-by-side look at the reasons why this health care debate may seem like a bit of a "glitch in the Matrix", giving those who watch politics a sense of deja vu.

Because sometimes the more things change, the more they stay the same. (This item has been cross posted at Pollster.com)

(Yes, I know that electric trains generally only have a powered third rail. I'm just extending the metaphor.)

One of the most tired phrases in politics is "Social Security is the third rail of American politics."  The problem is that it's true - Bush figured that out by squandering all of his political capital trying to reform it back in 2005.  It turns out that old people vote and they can be easily scared when the spectre of taking away their government checks is brought up.

We face a similar problem with health care.  It's obvious that the system doesn't work, and not just for people with pre-existing conditions and those who lose coverage.  It costs too much and isn't portable.  The lack of a true national market and the employer coverage model is a failure.  Too many people lack coverage and those people stick hospitals with huge bills for admissions that could have been solved with a visit to the family doctor, if they had one.

That being said, there are a lot of solutions better than Obamacare.  We've heard them before on this site and others and they aren't the point of this post.  The problem is that if Obamacare is defeated, no politician in their right minds will touch the healthcare issue with a 10-foot pole.  In persuing the worthy goal of defeating one specific bill, the issue has been demagogued to the point of insanity with threats of "death panels" (Sen. Isakson (R-GA), who put the provision nominally at issue, thinks this is nuts), "keep government away from my Medicare (note: WTF?) and all sorts of hyperbole about the continued "existence of the republic."

And don't think for a minute that every accusation about killing grannies and such lobbed against government can't be lobbed at private insurers.

So instead of a debate on what to do, we have people holding up pictures of Obama with a Hitler mustache shouting down elected officials before they can answer questions.  We have liberals convinced that people who oppose Obamacare are foam-at-the-mouth dittoheads and birthers organized by lobbyists.  And they're partially correct - many (not all) town hall shouters have spouted a lot of nonsense and many are making this personally about the president and anger at losing the last election.  It's embarrasing to people who have real issues with Obamacare who want to and make something work instead of yelling until they're red in the face.

The window for reasonable debate has closed by conservatives who want to make this Obama's Waterloo and liberals who are circling the wagons against a perceived onslaught of crazies.  The next reform proposal from either side will fall into the same pattern.  Eventually, everybody with power to do anything will throw their hands up.

Now healthcare is a "third rail," just like Social Security.  There are other, smaller, third rails to contend with.  Our primary system is rigged to prevent any serious talk about ethanol.  Serious agriculture subsidies reform is stymied because the committees that make ag policy are filled with congressmen from districts that feed off the USDA teat.  We can't have a serious discussion about Israel for long without someone getting called an anti-semite or a zionist likudnik stooge.

The problem?  You can't cut the size of government with all of these third rails in the way.  Everything has to be on the table.

Healthcare isn't just a sixth of the U.S. economy, it's a very big chunk of government spending.  The problem with the deficit hawkery I've heard recently is that it's small bore.  Spending freezes avoid the difficult choices about what exactly we want to cut.  Pork appropriations, non-military foreign aid and arts funding seem like ripe targets for popular cuts, but they make up a vanishingly small part of the budget and won't change the overall fiscal picture.  Survey after survey shows that people think government is too big, but they don't want to cut funding for Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security education, defense or anything specific beyond the amorphous "waste."  The only real solution is to slow and reverse the growth of healthcare costs while still providing the care people demand, and we are in the process of blowing it for the next several decades by turning a deadly serious issue over to the loudest, angriest, least reasonable wing of the movement, destroying any hope of comprimise a la Wyden-Bennett.

In the zeal to stop a bad new policy, we have guaranteed decades of the bad old policy.  Good job guys.

[Note: Sorry, the title should read "2009 VS 2005", but I can't change it without breaking links]

Paul Krugman:

A number of people in the news analysis business seem to be equating the role of liberal activists in making trouble for Republicans back in 2005, during the debate over Social Security privatization, with that of conservative activists in making trouble for Democrats over health care reform. [...] Seriously, I’ve been searching through news reports on the Social Security town halls, and I can’t find any examples of the kind of behavior we’re seeing now. Yes, there were noisy demonstrations — but they were outside the events. That was even true during the first month or two, when Republicans actually tried having open town halls. Congressmen were very upset by the reception they received, but not, at least according to any of the report I can find, because opponents were disruptive — crowds booed lines they didn’t like, but that was about it. [...]

So please, no false equivalences. The campaign against Social Security privatization was energetic and no doubt rude, but did not involve intimidation and disruption.

Reality:

• NW Progressive Institute, March 2005: "a boisterous crowd which frequently interrupted the discussion with shouts and hard nosed questions. ... Democrats in the audience who were interrupting the panel.... the crowd erupted in anger... Democrats in the audience started shouting him down again."

 

• Savannah Morning News, March 2005: "By now, Jack Kingston is used to shouted questions, interruptions and boos. Republican congressmen expect such responses these days when they meet with constituents about President Bush's proposal to overhaul Social Security."

 

• USA Today, March 2005: "Shaken by raucous protests at open "town hall"-style meetings last month ... Santorum was among dozens of members of Congress who ran gantlets of demonstrators and shouted over hecklers at Social Security events last month. Many who showed up to protest were alerted by e-mails and bused in by anti-Bush organizations such as MoveOn.org and USAction, a liberal advocacy group. They came with prepared questions and instructions on how to confront lawmakers."