FRIDAY

• Home
• Video
• Podcasts/RSS 
• Local Showtimes
• Past Shows
• Blogs
• About the Show
• Tell Tavis
• Features
• Mobile

RELATED LINKS

• About The Raw Deal
• Mr. Conason on Salon.com
• The New York Observer
• The Hunting of the President official site

E-mail a friend

Tavis: Joe Conason is a respected columnist for the 'New York Observer' and 'Salon.com.' He's also a best-selling author of books like 'The Hunting of the President' and 'Big Lies.' His latest book is 'The Raw Deal: How the Bush Republicans Plan to Destroy Social Security and the Legacy of the New Deal.' He joins us tonight from New York. Joe, nice to have you on the program, sir.

Joe Conason: It's great to be with you, Tavis.

Tavis: Glad to have you. Is anybody still talking about Social Security these days? When I - looked at my docket a few days ago and saw that you were gonna join us on the program tonight, I was like, you know, I haven't even heard the phrase SSI in so long, I thought this conversation was dead.

Conason: I don't think so. Certainly in the future they will come back to this topic, and what the book sets forth is the historical context in which the President and the Republican Congress decided that they could make a run at Social Security. Now, it is true that over the last few months, other matters have intervened. Most notably Katrina, which kind of set them back considerably. And I think the President's declining popularity has also made it more difficult for them to press forward with these kind of radical goals. But that doesn't mean they won't be back.

Tavis: I'm glad you said that, because it does in fact raise the question, which we can address now, as to if and when the President and the Republicans ever get their footing back, and I assume at some point they will, he has got another two and a half, three years left here. So at some point let's say assume they get their footing back and they - get themselves in a position to once again start dealing with real domestic issues. Is Social Security something that they could or would in fact think they could advance at this point?

Conason: Well, you remember, Tavis, that the President said this was the number one domestic goal of his second term. So from his point of view, this is something he has to come back and address again. The Congress is less eager to do it in part because it is an unpopular idea - and it became less popular as the President continued to push it. But I think if they win next November, and maintain control of both Houses, they are certain to make this a main priority for the next congressional session.

Tavis: Tell me how they advance it, though, in the next congressional session, given what you just said, Joe. One, that it ain't the most popular thing to do on Capitol Hill. It is, as we know, that third rail that nobody wants to touch. And as I recall, a few months ago, to your earlier point, when we were talking about Social Security reform, even the Republicans couldn't agree on this. And last I recall, he was starting to see some splintering inside his own Party?

Conason: Well, I think what they will try to do is - they will start to spend a lot of money on propaganda on this issue again, when they already spent quite a bit on, but they will keep pushing it and they'll try to create a crisis atmosphere that we have to do something because Social Security's going bankrupt. They had some success with that argument already, and I think they will push that again.

Tavis: Tell me who benefits from privatization, because that is essentially what we are trying to do here, is it not?

Conason: Privatization is the agenda, and it benefits the people who would have the revenue flow towards them instead of to the government, and then to the people. That is to say, Wall Street investment banks, insurance companies and others who would invest the money. They would stand to make up to a trillion dollars over the coming decades from a plan like the one that Bush has proposed.

Tavis: But like or loathe the notion of privatization, Joe, it is in the minds of some a stretch to suggest, as you have, that what they are really trying to do is to undo what FDR did in the 'New Deal.' They are trying to finish off what Ronald Reagan started. Why can't the President be seriously and truly interested in reforming SSI for the betterment of all Americans?

Conason: Well, he could be, except that the plan that he's proposed would undermine and destroy the program as every really reputable economist will tell you. And also, as I explain in the book, Tavis, if you go beneath the surface of what they are saying and find out what the Republicans are saying to each other and what the conservatives have been talking about for decades, their real purposes are very clear.

They want to dismantle this program. They don't believe the government has any role in providing this kind of service to ordinary Americans. They just don't believe in it.

Tavis: Let me go back to something we talked about a moment ago, because - again, I'm listening to you explain what the strategy would be, and why the President would have to come back to it. But it is not just the President whose numbers are in trouble. It is all the folk essentially who run the House and the Senate. DeLay, as we know, is in trouble.

Frist is potentially under investigation. I mean, you start to run the list of the leaders who would have to push this thing through Congress, you've got - I mean, - where are the President's foot soldiers to drive this thing through anyway, if - he comes back to it?

Conason: Well, you know, the leadership can be replaced - or I think is in the process of being replaced certainly in the House side. But you know, the committee chairs in the House and other sort of mid-level leadership in the House is still very determined to do this and they are in place to do it.

Tavis: How do the Democrats fights this? Are the Democrats interested in fighting? Do they have what they need to fight it? We saw them lose on the John Roberts matter. And of course earlier this week, President Bush nominated Harriet Miers; we'll come back to Ms. Miers here in a moment. But how would, how should, can the Democrats, when this issue comes back again, fight it?

Conason: Well, you know, Tavis, Social Security is one of the few issues, maybe the only issue, where the Democrats actually stood united, and had the kind of message discipline that the Republicans always have. There is really no break in their front against Social Security privatization this year. And that is one of the things that pushed the President back.

And stopped this in the Congress. Had any Democrat signed on to what President Bush wants to do with Social Security, I think it would have started to create more cover for the Republicans to proceed with the plan. As it is, they stayed together, they said, 'No way are we going to allow privatization,' and as a result, they had what amounts to a victory so far on this issue.

Tavis: All right, but when this issue comes up again, because you assure us that at some point, the Republicans will get back into position...

Conason: Oh, it will.

Tavis: ...where they can raise this issue again. When it comes up, what are the Democrats going to say? And - I ask that, Joe, because you well know it is one thing to be to be against what the President is doing, it's quite another thing to be for something else. Are the Democrats saying, 'We don't have a problem with Social Security, it needs to be left alone, it needs to stay just like it is,' or are the Democrats saying, 'The President is going too far on this, we need to adjust certain things, we need to reform certain things, and here is what our agenda is?'

Conason: Well, the Democratic position so far, Tavis, has been, 'We won't talk about how to deal with Social Security until the President takes privatization off the table,' which has been a strategy that's served them pretty well so far. The fact is, there are issues to deal with in the sort of distant future with Social Security, much smaller than the problems we really have with Medicare and with the President's tax cuts, in terms of the country's fiscal condition. But nevertheless, you could argue that - something needs to be done some day.

And the questions of what the options are, what could be done, what should be done, I think have not been decided on by the Democratic leadership. I lay out some of the possibilities in the book in terms of raising the FICA tax or raising the cap on the FICA tax. Most people don't realize that after $90,000, above $90,000 people don't pay any FICA tax. And that, in fact, when they find that out, that is the most popular solution to whatever problem Social Security may face. But there are other things that could be done; raising the retirement age.

There are incremental changes that could be made. Just as some were made under President Reagan in the early '80s that preserved Social Security up until it is estimated to be 2042 or later. So, those are the kinds of issues that I think the Democrats will eventually grapple with.

Tavis: How do you respond to folk, Joe, who say that FDR may have been a great president? I recall a study, a survey, I should say, a few years ago when - we got to the turn of the century, or just before the year 2000, I think it was 'Time' magazine. But everybody was doing these studies, but I recall one from "Time" magazine asking people who they thought the greatest American was, of the 20th century?

As I recall, FDR and Dr. King, FDR and MLK were at the top of that list. And as I recall, now don't quote me on this, but I think FDR might have won that contest as the greatest American of the 20th century. I raise that only because while he was a great President, there are some who say that what FDR put on the books, what he fought for - through the 'New Deal' was good, was appropriate, was necessary perhaps at that time. But no public policy necessarily stands the test of time eternally. There does come a time when issues need to be revisited, and that time for SSI is now.

Conason: Well, I wouldn't say that we should preserve it just because it was legislated 70 years ago. What I would say and what I think most observers who know enough about Social Security to analyze it would say, is that you don't throw it out just because it's 70 years old. It is worth looking at the issues of its solvency. It's worth very much looking at the problems that it solved. And the question is, what do you need to do with Social Security in order to keep it in place for future generations? Privatizing the revenue stream doesn't seem to be the way to go.

Tavis: All right, what - ultimately do you think will happen? So since you believe, as again, we've already established, it is going to come up. You have raised the issue, saying that the Democrats will likely raise in terms of how it ought to be reformed. What ultimately becomes of SSI, and does anything happen in terms of reforming it with this President in the White House?

Conason: That really depends on the outcome of the next, of the midterm elections, Tavis. It's very hard to predict what would happen short of knowing how those elections come out. If the Republicans maintain, or even expand their majority somehow next year, then I think this will be one of the top items that they go after. If they lose control of either House, then I think Social Security privatization will be dead for a long time to come.

Tavis: Well, as we speak, as we both know, they control both Houses of Congress and one of those Houses, the US Senate, has consent with the President, advising consent on his appointment to the Supreme Court. Before I let you go right quick, we know now, as of a couple days ago, that Harriet Miers, long-time friend of the President, is the new Supreme Court nominee. And since you are a columnist that has thoughts about everything, right quick, your thoughts about Ms. Miers?

Conason: Well - from first glance, she seems much too moderate to satisfy the President's base. Among the things that we first found out about Harriet Miers is that she was a Democrat until the early '90s. She gave money to Al Gore's Presidential campaign in 1988. She was in fact a Democrat while President Bush's father was in the White House. She seems to be a moderate on social issues, as far as we can tell. I think more information about her is going to come out, but from the looks of it, this is not the kind of appointment that would make the President's right wing base very happy.

Tavis: So does that means the Democrats are going to let this one pass through because if what you are saying is true, and this is their best shot of getting a moderate on the court, they can't fight this too hard, should they?

Conason: Well, I think they will question her closely, and they'll try to find out as much as they can about her background. I'm not sure there is a great deal of trust in the President's choices at this point for any office, among the Democrats on the Hill. But I think if she is what she appears to be, then Harriet Miers probably will be confirmed.

Tavis: We will see. Joe Conason, author of the new book, 'The Raw Deal: How the Bush Republicans plan to Destroy Social Security and the Legacy of the New Deal.' Nice to have you on the program, Joe.

Conason: Thank you, so much.

Tavis: Up next on this program, music impresario Herbie Hancock. Stay with us.