“Gangs of Six” are the new black in D.C. These self-appointed mini-commissions by their very structure worship a bipartisan process, and in today’s political climate that means they often produce less than stellar policy results. It’s not that these bastions of bipartisanship can’t necessarily produce policy recommendations that are in the best interest of all Americans; it’s that they have a tendency to produce lopsided solutions that exist leagues away from progressive positions and that fall slightly short of Republican ideals (see, i.e., health care). The latest “Gang of Six” is tackling debt and deficit issues and is including in its line of sight two of the most revered and successful programs in American history – Social Security and Medicare. The “gang” includes Republican Tom Coburn and Democrat Dick Durbin. Durbin has long been viewed as the Democrat who would vigorously protect Social Security in the group. Last week, he made a startling statement:Social Security cuts should not be ruled out. What caused the shift?
"I say, 'Tom [Coburn], not the doomsday speech again,'" said Sen. Richard J. Durbin of Illinois, the No. 2 Democrat in the Senate and one of the six, recounting the group's exchanges.
Yet Durbin has grown to appreciate the dire warnings. As months have gone by, the widely differing viewpoints of the senators — three Republicans, three Democrats — may have begun to meld.
"He has convinced me," Durbin said recently. "This is serious, and if we don't do something, and do it quickly, bad things can happen, in a hurry."
To fully appreciate the all-out mittromneyian magnitude of Durbin's about-face, one has to remember that it was Durbin who most vocally pushed back against Republican doomsday tactics in 2005. The last time Congress debated Social Security, Durbin took to the floor of the Senate and methodically destroyed Republican arguments for drastically changing the program (emphasis added):
Let me tell you what we bought for the political courage of President Ronald Reagan and Speaker Tip O'Neill in 1983. What we bought was, literally, 59 years of solvency for Social Security. We came together and solved the problem.
There are people ever since who have been carping about and criticizing the 1983 bipartisan approach, but I am glad I voted for it. I am glad because I can stand and face those retiring and say we faced the problem and we solved the problem.
Frankly, that is what we have to acknowledge today. The future problems are, in fact, long-term future problems for Social Security…It is a problem that could be 40 years away […]
When I listen to the President's privatization approach, I have to say there are several aspects that trouble me. First, this is not a crisis. We are not going to be in dire emergency circumstances in 2008. According to the Congressional Budget Office, almost 50 years from now Social Security is solvent. Social Security is making every single payment. [...]
Mr. DURBIN. [T]o suggest we have this terrible situation today where we cannot meet the obligations of Social Security, or that we are going to have it in 2008, or that we are going to have it in 2018 is wrong… There is no crisis because we prepared for this.... (– Congressional Record, February 10, 2005).
Now comes the President and his Republican friends in Congress saying: Stop; we have a crisis on our hands in Social Security. If we do not do something, and do it today, if we do not make dramatic changes in Social Security, it will not be there to pay the workers of tomorrow.
That overlooks the obvious. The Social Security Board takes a close look at the system and they tell us what we did in the mid-1980s still works today. We have at least 37 more years of solvency in Social Security. So there is no immediate crisis.
Is there a challenge? Yes, because in 2042, we have to change the law so that it brings in more money or in some way is handled in a different fashion so more people are covered. So 37 years from now, we have a challenge.
Can we do things today to address that challenge? You bet we can. We can make modest and commonsense changes in Social Security that will give it 20, 30 more years of life. That is a responsible thing to do. (Congressional Record, January 24, 2005)
"Modest" and "commonsense" solutions do not include raising the retirement age or cutting benefits, proposals which Democrats have previously rejected. And negotiating with the party of Ryan and Boehner will never yield “modest” and “commonsense” solutions, especially on the cusp of a presidential election year.
More perplexing than Senator Durbin’s abandonment of his previous position is his current claim that "putting the program on sounder financial footing now 'is a lot easier' than waiting until it is nearly broke in 26 years." The fallacy in that is obvious. No one is suggesting waiting until the system is broke to ensure its long-term solvency. What many progressives rightly suggest is that the current slash-and-burn climate of Republican deficit/debt hysteria is not the most opportune time to objectively analyze how to strengthen the program.
Indeed, just weeks earlier, on March 28th, Durbin himself proclaimed that it would be “extremely difficult” to push Social Security reform through Congress: “Including Social Security makes it increasingly difficult to bring the votes together…It’s politically explosive.”
Durbin’s maze of positions and public statements on the issue underscore a political truth: when you don’t have a firm moral compass, you’re bound to go in all sorts of directions. Democrats have yet to find their “true north” in these policy debates. They contend they’re for the middle class, but on vote and vote, they drift rightward towards policies that benefit the top 2%. It's policy-drift, and it’s happening all too frequently as Republicans dominate the direction of the political winds.
In this Gang of Six, the party that should have the upper hand is clear (hint: it’s the one with a president in the White House). Yet Republicans have once again succeeded not just in framing the debate, but in dominating it to the point that even liberal stalwarts are becoming complicit in promoting the Republican agenda.
“He convinced me,” Durbin says.
One could hope that Durbin in turn “convinced” Republicans of the validity of certain Democratic positions, such as increasing taxes on the wealthy or closing corporate tax loopholes. But hope and change are the worn slogans of a past campaign, and nothing about the Democrats’ behavior over the last two years supports the idea that they can convert even a handful of modern Republicans into advocates for the middle class.
As Democrats rejoice at the prospect of going on offense against Republicans for their attacks on Medicare, they should remember that no political deed goes unpunished. Changes to Social Security that hurt middle class workers and that undermine the program will be a campaign issue against Democrats – yes, even if Republicans voted for the same exact changes. Hypocrisy, after all, isn’t just a Democratic virtue.