|
|
ONLINE FEATURES
Book Reviews
BW Video
Columnists
Interactive Gallery
Newsletters
Past Covers
Philanthropy
Podcasts
Special Reports
BLOGS
Auto Beat
Bangalore Tigers
Blogspotting
Brand New Day
Byte of the Apple
Economics Unbound
Eye on Asia
Fine On Media
Green Biz
Hot Property
Investing Insights
Management IQ
NEXT: Innovation
NussbaumOnDesign
Tech Beat
Working Parents
TECHNOLOGY
J.D. Power Ratings
Product Reviews
Tech Stats
Wildstrom: Tech Maven
AUTOS
Home Page
Auto Reviews
Classic Cars
Car Care & Safety
Hybrids
INNOVATION
& DESIGN Home Page Architecture Brand Equity Auto Design Game Room SMALLBIZ Smart Answers Success Stories Today's Tip INVESTING Investing: Europe Annual Reports BW 50 S&P Picks & Pans Stock Screeners Free S&P Stock Report SCOREBOARDS Hot Growth 100 Mutual Funds Info Tech 100 S&P 500 B-SCHOOLS Undergrad Programs MBA Blogs MBA Profiles MBA Rankings Who's Hiring Grads | |
MARCH 21, 2005
Private Accounts: If Past Is Prologue... President Bush's Social Security struggles bring back painful memories for Gene Sperling, longtime chair of Bill Clinton's National Economic Council. Like the "Clinton care" health reform of 1993, Bush's ambitious plan to create private accounts has grown less popular as Americans learn more about it. Clinton's complicated proposal eventually drifted to the bottom after party members abandoned the sinking ship. The lesson, says Sperling: "Passing major reform becomes more and more difficult when you fill in the details." As political operatives try to assess the future of Bush's embattled proposal, they are studying the pitfalls of major Presidential initiatives in recent years. If history is any guide, the outcome could follow one of four paths: COSTLY VOTE. In 1993, Clinton persuaded Capitol Hill Democrats to back an unpopular deficit-reduction plan that featured the biggest tax increase in U.S. history. Like Bush today, Clinton faced a wall of partisan opposition. But he twisted arms within his party and eked out a thin victory. That cost dozens of his House supporters their seats in the 1994 midterm elections -- a debacle from which Democrats have never recovered. Moderate House Republicans fear that their leadership will force them to vote for private accounts -- only to strand them when the package falls far short of the 60 votes Bush needs in the Senate. COMPLETE COLLAPSE. Democrats hope to replicate the stinging defeat the GOP inflicted on Clinton in the health debate of 1993-94. As support for the Clinton plan ebbed, Dems offered scaled-down compromises, but Republicans refused to budge, choosing instead to embarrass the President. Most Hill Dems today would rather force Bush to eat humble pie than hand him anything vaguely resembling a victory. "Democrats really feel they have him on the ropes," notes one business lobbyist. SUPER SELL JOB. In 2001, Washington's elite declared that Bush had no mandate and no chance of winning a huge tax cut. But Bush took his case to the people and emerged victorious. Administration officials vow he'll do it again. A 60-city, 60-day sellathon is under way, and Bush allies predict the public mood will shift as the President educates wary Americans about the benefits of personal accounts. "Don't put anything beyond this guy when he is determined and focused," says Representative Nancy L. Johnson (R-Conn.), a moderate undecided about the Bush plan. VICTORY BY ANY NAME. Most experts think the likely endgame for Social Security will resemble the 2004 Medicare prescription drug battle. Bush gave Hill Republicans wide latitude to put together a plan. Although he had quibbles with the final legislation, he signed it. The same thing happened in 1996 when Clinton, eager to "end welfare as we know it" before Election Day, accepted a reform bill similar to two he had vetoed. Bush will "put his arms around whatever comes out and say, 'Thank you for my Social Security package,"' says American University political scientist James A. Thurber. The final outcome, of course, will be determined by the success -- or failure -- of Bush's marketing effort. While the possibility of a blowout victory seems remote, if the President starts to gain traction, moderate Dems are likely to reach out to create a new, bipartisan retirement savings plan that does not divert Social Security payroll taxes. But if voters continue to believe that the solution is more dangerous than the problem, Bush could face his first big policy defeat. By Richard S. Dunham CAPITAL WRAPUP Farm Supports vs. Food Stamps Could the budget-cutting machete aimed at farm subsidies end up chopping food stamps instead? Liberals are increasingly worried about that risk. President Bush has asked for $5.4 billion in cuts from agriculture programs over the next five years, mainly from crop supports. House and Senate budget writers will go along. But the actual cuts will be made by the Agriculture committees, which control spending for both farm subsidies and food stamps -- a popular safety net for the poor and near-poor. With Congress feeling huge pressure from farm groups to save subsidies, liberals fear that food stamps could end up bearing the brunt. By Richard S. Dunham   CAPITAL WRAPUP The French Start Knocking Heads Tough guys on the Seine? Quel changement! More and more, Paris is getting out ahead of Washington with creative, hard-nosed stances on diplomatic problems. France spearheaded the U.N. resolution pressuring Syria to leave Lebanon. Now the French have devised a novel way to squeeze Iran over its nuclear program. Bush's idea -- a worldwide ban on new uranium enrichment facilities -- is a nonstarter for U.S. allies. So Paris is taking a more targeted approach, arguing that only countries in good standing under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty may operate commercial nukes. With its nuclear deceptions, Tehran flunks that test, France argues -- so foreign contractors ought to be barred from completing Iran's Bushehr reactor. The missing piece: getting Russia, whose companies have the contract, on board. By Richard S. Dunham
| | |
 Copyright 2005, by The McGraw-Hill Companies Inc. All rights reserved.Terms of Use | Privacy Notice |
Printer-Friendly Version
