Tennessee Republican luminaries grumbled that
they couldn’t get
enough tickets to Memphis’s Cannon Center for the Performing Arts,
last Friday’s stop on George Bush’s Social Security privatization
tour. Congresswoman Marsha Blackburn, a GOP U.S. Senate hopeful
whose district includes parts of suburban Memphis, failed to appear
at her president’s show, claiming she missed her flight out of
Washington. However, it is widely assumed Blackburn didn’t want
to be hectored by Bush to get off the fence on private Social Security
accounts.
Rep. Harold Ford, Jr., who may face Blackburn
in the race for Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist’s seat in 2006, had no problem
with tickets – the White House personally invited the 34-year-old
lawmaker and gave him 100 of the prized pieces of paper. From the
stage, Bush warmly welcomed Ford, seated in the third row of the
auditorium.
Why the star treatment for a Democrat with
his eyes on the U.S. Senate? It’s simple: Bush and the anti-Social Security network
consider Harold Ford to be a friend. Despite the public’s leeriness
of privatization, Bush clearly believes that his scheme – and Ford’s
vote – are still in play. Until very recently, Ford gave them no
reason to think otherwise. Bush is at least as good a political
dancer as Ford – and he’s not convinced the waltz with Ford is
over. Neither are we.
Noting that Ford “is viewed as a potential ally by conservative
backers of private accounts,” the Los
Angeles Times asked the congressman about the Bush rally theme:
A Conversation on Strengthening Social Security. "That wasn't
a conversation. It was more of an echo," said Ford. The Associated
Press got an earful of
Ford’s concerns about the multi-trillion dollar cost of private
accounts and the risk that people would lose their retirement money
to the market. "If things go bad, people turn to the government
for help," he said – appearing to endorse Franklin Roosevelt’s
concept of Social Security as insurance against the vicissitudes
of the stock market.
What a difference a few public opinion polls make – plus
lots of pressure from Democratic leadership. Only a year ago, Ford
told the Nashville
Scene “there are some things some Democrats believe
that I don't. I don't think government is an insurance program" – a
hideous but principled position that is philosophically consistent
with proponents of privatization. At a gathering of privatizers
in March of
last year, Ford embraced Karl Rove’s “ownership society” mantra,
and repeatedly made clear that he favored “personal accounts” in
principle. Asked directly if he would support legislation “like
[South Carolina Republican] Senator Lindsey Graham’s, with personal
accounts in Social Security,” Ford replied: “Yes, I would,
provided we could pay for the transition costs without running
up bigger deficits.”
Ford has long been a regular on the privatizers’ snake oil circuit.
Although he balks at the price tag for private accounts, Ford has
consistently encouraged his rightwing colleagues to believe that
he is, at heart, one of them. "Designing a Social Security
reform plan is the first step, and Rep. [Jim] DeMint [R-SC] has
designed a good one,” said Ford in a September
16, 2003 press release. “The next step is figuring out how
to pay for it. That's the harder part – the part that will demand
political courage from both Democrats and Republicans, this Congress
and this President.”
Ford makes common cause with greedy racists
and calls that courage. His game is to position himself as closely
to the Republicans as
possible, so that when the right moment arrives he can effect the “compromise” that
causes Democratic ranks to fracture. Harold Ford is a betrayal
waiting to happen.
There could have been no doubt, last year,
that Ford was seeking a way to support a privatization bill. “Hopefully,” he said, “we
can consider some new financing approaches – such as raising the
taxable maximum from $90,000 to $140,000 – when we put
personal accounts on the table.” (Italics ours.)
Since at least mid-2003 Ford has done everything
possible to demonstrate that he shares both the premises and
principles of Social Security’s
opponents: that the program is in deep trouble (“over the long-term,
the costliest option is maintaining the existing system“) and that
government should not provide a universal mechanism to ensure against
old age and survivors poverty (“I don't think government
is an insurance program").
The Social Security demolition team loves him. “Harold
Ford brings unique credibility [read: Blackness] to the movement
to modernize and
restructure the current Social Security system,” said Derrick
Max, Executive Director of the Alliance for Worker Retirement
Security, a front for the National Association of Manufacturers,
in September, 2003. “His frank acknowledgment that ‘tough choices
about financing Social Security are in front of us’ is a deep breath
of fresh air in a debate that has been mired in partisanship and
myopia.”
Remember Derrick Max’s term, “modernize” – a Right code word for
hitching Social Security to the stock market. The same language
also leaped from Harold Ford’s mouth, even as he attempted very
late in the game to retreat from Bush-style privatization.
The retreat
established
Ford’s support for private accounts in principle in our January
6, 2005 Cover Story, “Black Point Man for the Right: Rep. Harold
Ford, Jr.” Just hours after the issue appeared, Ford chief of staff
Mark Schuermann requested that we publish
a correction based on the congressman’s December 30, 2004 statement:
"I do not support changing
the Social Security system as has been proposed by President
Bush, nor do
I support Social Security proposals advanced by the CATO Institute.
In fact, both of these proposals have the potential to harm current
beneficiaries by paying for the transition costs by issuing debt.
Piling on more red ink to the existing federal budget deficit
and the national debt will also do both long and short term harm
to our economy . I do believe that the system needs to be modernized
but I do not support changing the Social Security system as President
Bush has proposed."
Of course, Bush had not then (and still has
not) presented his Social Security plan – he’s waiting to see what he can get away
with. And note that Ford uses the marketizers’ code phrase, “the
system needs to be modernized” – a much bigger grab bag
than simple adjustments to make Social Security viable for a
longer period.
Ford did put some distance between himself
and Bush and CATO, but he had not disavowed private accounts,
only the borrowing
of trillions to pay for them – a position he shares with lots
of Republican lawmakers. George Bush and Harold Ford are both
looking for the right deal.
responded
to Ford’s request for a correction:
” There
is nothing to correct. Rep. Ford has embraced privatization "in principle," as
we wrote. We are sure that Cong. Ford will further choreograph
his dance with the Right regarding costs and such, but he has
effectively and deliberately crossed a very bright line. He
has a very long way to go to come back to the civilized side
of the aisle. Please tell us when he plans to get there.”
Ford’s machinations are transparent to everyone, although the
etiquette of Black congressional politics prevents his African
American colleagues from publicly calling him on it. Rightwing
columnist Robert Novak cannot be believed on most subjects, but
when it comes to what’s happening in conservative circles, he’s
an insider. “Prominent House Republicans have been soliciting
support for the Bush Social Security proposal from several black
members of Congress, who have been pressured by Democratic leaders
to stand firm,” Novak wrote on February
27. “Rep. Harold Ford of Tennessee last year appeared ready
to support personal accounts as part of Social Security revision
but backed away then under heavy pressure.”
An Associated Press article sent to us by
Ford’s office to buttress
his case for a “correction” of the commentary,
said: “Supporters of Bush's idea had hoped Ford would join their
side on Social Security as he explores a Senate run for 2006.” In
fact, Ford gave them every reason to hope. And the dance ain’t
over, yet.
As late as March
9, USA Today still considered Harold Ford to be a “tantalizing
target” who “might break with fellow Democrats” on Social Security.
Ford made it plain that he is still searching high and low
for a way to say “yes” to Bush. “My party has to be very careful
not to be perceived as the 'no' party on this," he told
USA Today.
Bush heard Ford’s signal loud and clear,
and sent the invitation and 100 tickets for the Memphis rally.
The recantation
Ford’s current spin is, essentially, that
he spent all that time in a mutual courtship with Social Security
privatizers in
order to advance his own ASPIRE Act,
which would start every newborn child off in life with a $500
dollar investment account. After George Bush finished his sales
pitch in Memphis, last week, Ford was eager to put the president’s
remarks – and his own recent history – in the best possible light. "The
reason I'm excited about him talking about these accounts," Ford
told the New York Times, "is that I believe we need to do
more to help people save and create wealth, especially for low-income
and moderate-income Americans." However, “anything we do
should be outside of Social Security," he added.
There is no question that the shallowness
of Black wealth – about
one-tenth of median white household wealth, a direct result of
slavery, Jim Crow and current discrimination – must be placed
among the most urgent African American priorities. The centuries-long
white head-start tends to negate every gain made by Blacks, as
whites sprint ahead on the strength of inherited wealth and social
connections, with the still-strong winds of skin privilege at
their backs adding further advantage. No legitimate Black political
activist argues otherwise.
At a March 1 Capitol Hill briefing titled “Changing
Social Security: The Impact on African Americans,” Harlem
Congressman Charles Rangel welcomed the creation of private
accounts, as long as they are not substitutes for real pensions
and Social Security benefits. “If they were to have a thrift like
the Congress has, where we have our pension benefits, and a
separate account for privatization, count me in,” said Rangel.
“I am in favor of an add-on account, an add-on account that
is outside of Social Security that would enhance wealth opportunity,
especially for low income people,” said Congressional Black Caucus
Foundation vice president Dr. Maya Rockeymoore. “Wealth creation
is important to African Americans. But you don’t do it by carving
away from Social Security. You do it by adding on outside of
Social Security.” Rockeymoore is author of the CBC Foundation’s
report, “The
Social Security Privatization Crisis.”
Harold Ford has done his best to foster the
privatization crisis. Now repentant – but only for so long as Bush’s Social Security
prospects look dim – Ford claims to be the Green Knight, the
congressional standard-bearer for Black wealth creation.
Ford, however, chose to present his “Kids Account” bill
while simultaneously letting everyone in both Houses of Congress
and
the national media know that he was up for grabs on Social Security
privatization. He threw together a Congressional Ownership
and Savings Caucus, comprised of Republicans (Reps. Phil
English, PA, Tom Petri, WI, Sen. Rick Santorum, PA), and Blue
Dog and Democratic Leadership Council Democrats (Rep. Jim Cooper,
Sen. Kent Conrad, ND). Rather than an honest forum, it seemed
the perfect venue for cooking up market raids on Social Security.
At a recent town hall meeting held by Ownership
Caucus member Santorum, Young Republicans chanted, “Hey hey,
ho ho, Social Security's got to go."
As long as Ford keeps and cultivates such
company, everything he does is suspect, no matter the merits
of the legislation he
hawks. “Prince Harold,” as he’s commonly called in Memphis, specializes
in creating situations in which he can reach a bargain at the
expense of the Black Political Agenda, which he disrespects at
every opportunity. He methodically undermines what there is of
Black congressional power in order to achieve the status of power broker.
The racial oppression-based dilemma of Black wealth creation
must be addressed with all the vigor and intellect at our disposal,
but not in the dangerous context of Social Security, as the wily Blue
Dog Harold Ford and his allies attempted.
Above all, expect Ford to behave opportunistically
at all times – it
is the only consistent aspect of his character. Ironically, this
ability to sail on the winds of perceived political advantage
can sometimes lead Ford to embrace positions he fervently rejected
only a short time before. Remember, just a year ago Ford told
the Nashville Scene, “I don't think government
is an insurance program." Yet less than two weeks ago Ford
seemed to have undergone a conversion. In a discussion with the Memphis
Flyer newspaper’s Jackson Baker on making add-on investment
accounts more advantageous to low income people, Ford experienced…thought!
”What happens if people lose? Will some kind
of Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation be created?” he asked – making
the case for a governmental machinery that would cushion against
losses occurring through bad investments in sour lemons like
Enron and WorldCom.
Amazing! Ford had finally reconciled
himself to government as “an insurance program.” In 2005, at the age of
34, he seemed to have grasped the wisdom of Franklin Roosevelt’s
1930s New Deal. Will Ford be transformed into a dependable,
honest, progressive politican, somebody Black folks can count
on?
Not a chance. Harold Ford cannot be trusted.
|