“Run Elizabeth Run” : for Majority Leader
Well quite the interesting news twist this morning as Senate Democratic Minority Leader Harry Reid announces he will not be running for re-election. Which of course launched the standard narrative of which current lieutenant would move up, giving us the rather stultifying debate of “Schumer vs Durbin”. Or Clinton’s former senior colleague vs Obama’s former senior colleage. Or Chicago vs Wall Street.
But DFA and the PCCC decided to throw a hand grenade in the mix. Progressives push for Warren as next Senate Democratic leader And this might just fly. Certainly it gives an outlet for the Ready for Warren folk and allows them to align with those people (like me) who always thought Elizabeth Warren could do more from the Senate. The beauty of this particular gambit is that Warren really doesn’t have to do anything different except double down on efforts to elect progressive Senators. Something she would naturally be doing anyway. With the bonus that this gives an outlet for frustrated progressives.
Can the Democrats retake the Senate? Well in a good turn-out year sure, we could reasonably expect Clinton coattails. But if you could energize that turnout among progressives who don’t exactly trill to Clintonian magic by showing that pushing for your own Senator could have big impacts should that translate into a Warren leadership that could indeed be a Big Biden Deal (hey this is a family blog). At a minimum it could strengthen Warren’s hand in leadership even if she didn’t nab the top spot.
Something to think about and kick around if you like.
Latest reports have Warren opting out of a run.
“My advice to Hillary Clinton: Be loud about prospects of success for working people. If you do that you’re probably not going to have any problem. If you don’t, you just might” – Rep. Keith Ellison. co-chair of the Progressive Caucus in the House, quoted in The Nation, Feb 23, 2015 issue article titled “Waiting for Warren”…
If Madam secretary gets a clue about the plight of workers after 8 years of Obama she will have some coattails. If she doesn’t she won’t.
On a parallel topic Dr. Black provided this link today regarding Senate Democratic votes on amendments regarding Social Security: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/nancy-altman/expanding-social-security_b_6955394.html
Will Madam secretary support the views of Senate democrats regarding the future of Social Security? I wish somebody would ask her that.
Amateur–When she ran in 2008, she said she thought SS was fiscally sound and required no reforms. Obama said something about “insuring the future of the SS program” and “restoring solvency”. He essentially followed the Pete Peterson line, thus his subsequent advocacy of benefit cuts to strike a “grand bargain” regarding the debt. Now, progressives have gotten down to business and have begun to campaign for benefit increases. Yep, the lady should speak to this issue ASAP. NancyO
yes, certainly. but the Nancy A model is a trap and a snare. Social Security works because it is not welfare. Raising the payroll tax one tenth of one percent at need … about 80 cents per wee for the average worker each year… would save Social Security and preserve its fundamental character as “not welfare.”
All the Nancy A model does is give the Big Liars cover. And talking points. There is no need and much danger to a “tax the rich” approach to save workers from having to save an extra dollar a week or so to protect their retirement.
Well that was short lived. Chucky Schumer gets the nod. I live in NY, CS is a slave of Walls Street – good luck.
E Warren getting more good press today re her bill in the Senate to “Strengthen SS”.
Webb – Did you look at the Bill? I don’t think it says anything of substance. I read it and concluded, “Show Pony”.
I’d be interested on your thoughts. The link to the Bill:
Krasting it is a Budget amendment and not any proposal to change either the Social Security Act itself or to actually make an appropriation.
From what I see its main impact would be to reverse the rule that bars reallocation from OAS to DI. Maybe. But it is one of those technical amendments that only makes sense within the very arcane set of rules that governs the budget act, which doesn’t actually direct dollars but instead provides limits on possible directions.
I don’t think this represents the entirety of what Warren is proposing.
Webb – “technical”? What’s that mean? You think it might be about the allocation issue between OAS and DI. Maybe, but please tell me how does that add up to “Strengthen and Expand”??
The bill does not define the Bill’s objectives beyond those words. It says it will do this magic without contributing to the deficit. Sounds nice but we both know that the only way to strengthen and expand with no budget is to rely exclusively on taxes.
E Warren wants do change the cap, add in a millionaires tax and also a transaction tax on Wall Street. She also wants to means test benefits.
Ok fine. But where are the votes for this type of approach? The Republican House? The Republican Senate? The lame duck President? Middle of the road Democrats? Hillary Clinton? (totally sleeping with Wall Street) Chuck Schumer (owes his political career to Wall Street)?
Discussions like these are going to take place after 2017, not before. This Bill is just political fodder. It gives Nancy Altman, etal, a platform to cheer.
Form over substance from Warren.
Krasting I think neither you or I are experts in the ins and outs of Budget language. So what seems like a Nothingburger may be vitally important.
For example the amendment allows for “sustainable expansion of benefits”. Now if the original budget bill language created limits such that “expansion” was simply off the table and prohibited this language would open the door to a wide variety of specific legislation that could then be introduced in Senate Finance which has primary responsibility over Social Security and on which I believe Warren serves. As opposed to language that prevents that. As such this seemingly vague amendment might be the hill that Social Security expansion lives or dies on.
I don’t know for sure and suggest that you don’t either and that conclusions of “form over substance” are simply not warranted.
As for your political questions about “where are the votes”. Well obviously you have not paid any attention to the polls which show overwhelming support for protection and expansion of Social Security across the board among Republicans and Democrats alike.At least R and D voters. What happened in the Budget Vote-a-Rama is that certain Amendments to protect and expand Social Security got near universal Democratic support and universal Republican opposition. And Democrats can go to the country on that in 2016. As opposed to the situation in past elections where over half the Dems and the White House were committed to Grand Bargains that had the effect of cutting Social Security via Chained CPI and increases in retirement age.
People I talk to in DC, including staff on various Congressional Committees think that the events of this last few days are indeed a Big Effing Deal. For example Wall Street Chuck voted for them.
Krasting I believe you are a sailor at least I seem to have seen pictures of you on a boat. And it is sometimes only skilled sailors that can detect a sea change or make sense of a shift in the wind. Whereas landlubbers don’t have a clue. I suggest that in these matters you are just such a landlubber. So what if the wind shifted from being in our face to a few points aft of starboard? What difference could that make in our gaining headway? Well it could be the difference between untold hours of tacking against the wind and letting the sheets fly. If that is I knew fuck all about sailing rather than just knowing a few basic principles.
Of course WS Chuck voted for it. It has nice sound bites. No details. You are applauding an empty piece of paper.
Jeez Bruce ever think of just changing your name to Bruce Kontrarian?
good lord, does coberly think Krasting is right?
well, maybe not entirely. but the “without affecting the deficit” is a bit of a dodge. i’d call it something else if these people weren’t “on the side of Social Security.”
by raising the cap, the money for “expanding (or even “not cutting”) Social Security remains “off budget.” True, but “the rich” will know they are paying a huge tax increase (for them) and not getting anything for their money. they will not vote for it. and they will be motivated to vote for cuts in SS… having been convinced by “the defenders of Social Security” that SS represents a huge tax burden for them. Should the unlikely happen and the cap is raised, the rich will spend the rest of their political lives turning SS into means tested welfare, which they will cut below any meaningful value as retirement insurance. it’s a really bad idea.
meanwhile, a tiny payroll tax increase on “workers” would pay for SS forever, keeping SS “worker paid retirement insurance.” so the workers can say “i paid for it myself.”
which, so far, they still like to be able to say.
of course “raising the cap” polls well. everyone likes the idea of getting someone else to pay for it… even while they are saying “i paid for it myself.” the difference is in whether or not it is true. one or the other.
SS will not be as easy to defend when the defenders are telling the same cute lies that the Big Liars have been telling.
Webb – You are a legitimate spokesperson for Progressive thinking. Consider the enthusiasm you have and then look at the media. E Warren is an angel.
Consider Huff post and NYTs the past few months. They have crippled H Clinton. I was surprised. What does Hil do in response? She deletes files.
All this makes Dems looking for alternatives, so in spite of what she’s said, EW will get involved. In my opinion E Warren would beat HC. EW has ‘Mo” HC has ‘SLO”.
You might like that outcome. But the rub is that EW would have a big hill to climb in Ohio, Pennsylvania and Virginia. You have to win two of those three to win the WH.
This ends up with Jeb Bush. A very bad outcome. EW is a tad too left for the folks in these states.
Consider a total wild card? John Kerry. He lost in 08 by 35k votes in Ohio.