The “Reform” McCain Wants to Forget
Arizona senator consistently contradicts himself
With the markets in frightening
turmoil and the public outraged by financial irresponsibility and
excessive greed, John McCain has suddenly rediscovered the importance
of strong, watchful government. Only six months ago, he assured The Wall Street Journalthat
he is generally opposed to regulation, but today he is ready to control
executive compensation, defend 401(k) accounts from corporate predators
and impose renewed federal oversight of errant markets.
populist rhetoric sounds strange, especially when emitted by a
politician whose circle of advisers includes former Sen. Phil Gramm,
vice president of the scandal-tainted Union Bank of Switzerland, and
John Thain, chief executive of the firm formerly known as Merrill
Lynch. But when facing the angry voters who have watched their savings
evaporate, the conservative Republican hopes to sound more like a
He wants to blur the differences between himself and Barack Obama on fundamental economic philosophy. But there is one critical issue where McCain has established a record that cannot be escaped so easily.
Sen. McCain wants to privatize Social Security. It is a stance he has repeatedly taken over the past 10 years in recorded votes, interviews, speeches and documents. It is also a position that he will deny in this campaign. In fact, he tried to deny it at a June town hall meeting in New Hampshire, when he declared, âIâm not for, quote, privatizing Social Security. I never have been. I never will be.â But the contrary evidence is overwhelming.
As long ago as 1998, several years before the Bush administration sought to promote privatization, he voted to partially replace Social Security with private accounts. He included privatization in the economic platform of his 2000 presidential campaign. He spoke out in support of the White Houseâs ill-fated push for privatization during the spring of 2005. And when that plan started to sink into oblivion, despite an advertising and public relations budget that exceeded $50 million, he tried to save it.
Sen. McCain was still pushing the Bush plan earlier
this year, when he needed to persuade his own partyâs ultra-rightists
to accept him as their nominee. During the same interview when he told
the Journal editors that he generally opposes regulation, he
explained his plan to âreformâ Social Security. âI believe that private
savings accounts are a part of it,â he said, âalong the lines that
President Bush proposed.â
Obviously such remarks no longer serve Sen. McCainâs political purposes, and certainly wonât attract voters, who never liked the Bush planâand probably like those ideas even less as they watch the market ravage their pension funds and equity accounts. Listening to the Republican nominee promise this week to âprotectâ their retirement accounts, they might wonder how he will do that when so much of the value of those accounts has disappeared already. They might also wonder what would happen to the elderly and other beneficiaries of Social Security if the privatizers like him had succeeded in consigning their future to the same Wall Street sharks he now denounces for their greed and irresponsibility.
Opportunity for Obama to Capitalize
Sen. Obama, this moment presents a crucial opportunity to draw the most
important distinctions between himself and his opponent, as well as
between Democrats and Republicans. By going after Sen. McCain on Social
Security, he can assure those Democrats with the deepest doubts about
himâolder, white working-class votersâthat he is on their side and can
be trusted to understand their concerns. And, of course, the Social
Security theme fits well with the broader Obama indictment of Sen.
McCain as an echo of the presidentâs failed policiesâbecause on this
issue, that is exactly what McCain has been, not only this year but for
More broadly, Sen. Obama needs to convince voters that he has a program to address the economic crisisâand tell them why Democratic solutions are not only in their interests, but in the national interest as well. This is a chance for him to explain how progressive solutions workâhow shared prosperity made America strong and productive during the century when we became the wealthiest and most powerful nation in the world. He should place responsibility for stagnation and decline where it belongsâon the Republican policies that have created staggering inequality.
And he should emphasize that, by every measure, Democratic administrations over the past hundred years have achieved measurably more economic success than Republican administrationsânot only with better budgeting and fairer taxation, but even in the growth of equity values. Stock prices rise when a Democrat is president.
The history is so clear that it is hard to understand why any investment banker or broker votes Republican. But then, lately weâve learned that they arenât necessarily so smart after all.