In recent days, Clinton’s language on Social Security has come under scrutiny. Her campaign has insisted that Clinton “has no plans to cut benefits and, in fact, has a plan to expand them.” But as the co-founder of Social Security Works Nancy Altman points out, “What Secretary Clinton has said about Social Security is completely consistent with the Bowles-Simpson plan.”
What is the problem with the Bowles-Simpson [BS] plan? Progressives greeted the creation of the BS commission to “study” entitlements with sharp criticism. Many progressive economists like Dean Baker questioned the Obama administration’s focus on supply sided entitlement cuts in the name of deficit reduction during a time of economic peril. At the same time, progressives wondered what type of political gain there could be for Democrats, who were generally understood as the programs’ public guardians. Many observers across the political spectrum understood that the selection of Bowles and Simpson as the co-chairs — two longtime supporters of privatization and cuts — made cuts to Social Security and Medicare a foregone conclusion.
Some progressives, however, defended Obama, insisting that he would never jeopardize the integrity of programs like Social Security and Medicare while undermining the credibility of the Democratic Party on a definitional issue that is wildly popular across the electorate. Instead, we were told Obama was playing the GOP like a fiddle and actually fighting to save Social Security in the name of cutting it.
As we saw, the President created the BS commission expressly for the purpose of legitimizing a “grand bargain” to show Democratic leadership was “serious” and would move against the deeply held interests of its base in the name of “centrism” and “bipartisan progress.” Thankfully, the GOP had turned inward on itself in an orgy of partisan paranoia and proved incapable of seizing on the political bonanza that Obama had giftwrapped and set at their feet.
Here we are in 2016 and Clinton uses the same language as Obama on entitlements and shares many of the same advisors and confidantes who have for decades argued for cuts. Indeed, were it not for the Lewinsky scandal, Clinton would likely have succeeded in his plan to partially privatize Social Security at the behest of Robert Rubin and other Wall St. insiders who oversaw the Clinton’s financial deregulatory agenda.
Sanders has come out clearly and forcefully to say there will be no grand bargain and no cuts to Social Security and Medicare on his watch. His record says you can count on that. Clinton continues to prevaricate. Where do we want to be on this issue as Democrats, citizens, and people who will ultimately benefit from these programs? As of right now, Sanders has by far and away the stronger position for the nation and the party, while Clinton vacillates. Stay tuned, because this is a huge issue.