Please welcome Steven Gillon, author of The Pact: Bill Clinton, Newt Gingrich, and the Rivalry that Defined a Generation
By 1997, Bill Clinton felt he had the upper hand with Congress and it was time for him to make historic moves. He had replaced Leon Panetta as Chief of Staff with investment banker Erskine Bowles late in his first term, and as author Steven Gillon tells the tale, Bowles brought a sense of order to the White House. Bowles planned to return to the private sector as Clinton’s second term began, but Bill and Hillary implored him to stay on for one final task: “fixing” Social Security.
President Obama has likewise entrusted Erskine Bowles with the task of chairing his own Deficit Commission, which is currently meeting in secret to address Social Security and other entitlement issues. Since little is known about the deliberations of that commission, I thought it would be instructive to have Dr. Gillon on to talk about Bowles’s history of shuttle diplomacy in 1997 to negotiate a deal between Newt Gingrich and Bill Clinton to cut Social Security. He based his book The Pact: Bill Clinton, Newt Gingrich, and the Rivalry that Defined a Generation on interviews he conducted with Clinton, Gingrich, Bowles and others involved in the negotiations. And according to Bowles, the deal would have gone through save for one factor: the Monica Lewinsky episode.
Bowles was uniquely suited to the task of negotiating a deal on Social Security. He had the trust of Newt Gingrich and the Republicans that Clinton would need to carry out his vision of Social Security reform:
Bowles became the liaison between Clinton and Gingrich, shuttling back and forth brokering deals between Capitol Hill and the White House. Neither man trusted the other, but both trusted Bowles, and he became the key figure in their evolving relationship. “You cannot underestimate the role that Erskine played,” recalled Joe Gaylord. “He and Gingrich liked each other. They trusted each other.” Bill Archer, the powerful head of the House Ways and Means Committee, also felt comfortable with Bowles. “He was not ideological. He was not pushing the big left agenda. He was there to make things happen between the White House and a Republican Congress.” Later, Gingrich would call his appointment “decisive,” and a turning point in his relationship with the White House. “It is the one brief period when you have a significant adult whose experience transcends Washington, who understands making deals and getting business done, and who has a center-right bias in fiscal policy,” he said. “He had the ability to bridge the White House and my party in Congress.”
Clinton had been trying to deal with Social Security for some time. In 1994, HHS Secretary Donna Shalala had appointed the 13-member Danforth Commission to advise on Social Security. She appointed three members from labor (including Richard Trumka), Republican Alan Simpson (appointed by Obama to co-chair his Deficit Commission with Bowles) and Pete Peterson (the hedge-fund billionaire funding much of the current economic work being used to justify dismantling Social Security). The Danforth Commission was always deeply divided and was never able to reach a consensus, largely due to the fact that the appointees had different perspectives, but Obama apparently learned that lesson: His 18-member commission already is packed with 14 members who support cutting benefits, and many who support some form of privatization. It takes 14 votes to pass any recommendation.
The deal between Gingrich and Clinton left many of the details to be worked out, but with the stock market doing well, there was some indication that there would be more public support for privatization than there had been in the past. Writes Gillon:
There was a growing consensus on both sides of the aisle in favor of having Social Security tap into the stock market to increase the rate of return on retirement funds. However, difficult questions remained unanswered: Who would manage the money: individuals or the government? Would private accounts replace checks guaranteed by the government, or would they simply be an add-on to the existing system? Politics, not economics, presented the biggest obstacle. Any long-term solution to solving Social Security required increasing the age of eligibility and changing the formula used to calculate the annual cost of living adjustment (COLA) — two steps guaranteed to arouse powerful opposition across the political spectrum.

A White House photographer snapped this picture of the secret meeting in the Treaty Room between Clinton and Gingrich. Photo was declassified in November 2007 in response to Gillon's FOIA request.
Clinton was willing to take the hit with liberals if Bowles could bring on board a contentious GOP, which didn’t want to give Clinton a legislative victory. That meant negotiating with Gingrich.
Gillon writes that the two men had a strange affinity, coming from differing cultural traditions rooted in the ‘60s. Bowles was adept at bridging that gap, and thus on October 28, 1997, Gingrich arrived at the White House for a secret meeting. He came in the diplomatic entrance to avoid the press.
Gillon writes:
In private conversations with Gingrich and with Texas Republican Bill Archer, powerful head of the House Ways and Means Committee, the president promised to “provide political cover” for Democrats and Republicans by announcing his support for raising the minimum age required for Social Security and for changing the COLA formula. The president was willing to oppose the leadership of his own party and support the Republican demand for private accounts.
According to Gingrich:
“I understood that I would have to fight some of my old guard,” Gingrich recalled. “He understood that he would have to fight his hard left. Together we could shape about a 60 to 65 percent majority. I was happy for him to be a successful president. He was comfortable with us being a successful Republican congress.”
It looked like they had a path to success. Clinton would take the heat from Democrats and work through “centrist” Democrats and Republicans, as he had when he passed NAFTA and welfare reform.
And then Monica Lewinsky broke into the headlines:
Politically, it forced Clinton to seek refuge in the liberal wing of his party, the same group he had agreed to abandon a few months earlier. “All opportunities for accomplishment were killed once the story came out,” reflected a senior White House official. “If we cut a deal with the Republicans on Social Security there was every possibility that the Democrats, who were the only people defending him in Congress against these charges, could easily get angry and abandon him.” With conservatives in an uproar, Gingrich lost his political wiggle room and was forced to appease his right-wing base. If Gingrich did not “feed the conservative beast,” recalled a colleague, he would have been removed from his job as Speaker.
As Erskine Bowles himself said, “Monica changed everything.”
The book certainly offers a fascinating insight into what might have been. But it also offers clues to Obama’s thinking in appointing the current Deficit Commission. His does not have the ideological fractures that the Danforth Commission had, yet seeks to replicate Clinton’s successes — most notably in appointing Bowles, Simpson and Democrat John Spratt, who were all involved in the Clinton Social Security effort.
Please welcome Steven Gillon, Resident Historian of the History Channel and Professor of History at the University of Oklahoma.



142 Comments





Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About Firedoglake
Steve, Welcome to the Lake.
Jane, Thank you for Hosting today’s Salon.
nice to be here
Thanks so much for being here today, Dr. Gillon.
I notice Newt is speaking up again on revising Social Security. Do you think the failure of the deal with Clinton was something he regrets?
I thunk he regrets alot of things. He saw the deal as a way for him to earn a place in the history books as a statesman. He is a populist, a rebel, who wants to be remembered as a statesman. The deal was probably his last chance.
Spratt was on the House budget committee at the time and according to Gene Sperling, was apparently party to the negotiations in some form.
Do you know what his involvement was?
Can someone direct me to the link for the chat pls?
The chat is right here. Dr. Gillon is answering questions in the comments.
Dr Gillon – Do you see Newt still reaching or searching for an elected position, to be provided another opportunity to be remembered differently?
There were different levels to the negotiations. There were only a handful of central players working out the key issues: Clinton, Gingrich, and Bowles were the central players. They were reaching out to congressional allies trying to build coalitions and test the waters for different ideas.
As always, please keep all questions on the topic of the book. If you want to discuss other issues, take them to the appropriate thread.
He needs to always be in the game. When he is on the outside he throws bombs to destroy everything on the inside. Once inside, however, he tends to be more pragmatic. At some level he would love to be president. But I’m sure he realizes that will never happen. For now he seems content with being the outsider tossing bombs into Obama’s agenda.
Jane, Would you please remind us of Newt’s role in the impeachment struggle? Also, address what their relationship has become today.
At the end of each comment you’ll see the “reply” button. If you hit that and then type your reply, people will be able to see which question you’re responding to.
Thanks for being here, Dr. Gillon. Great book, must confess I am still working on this one.
Now that you’d laid it out, I can see now where The Pact has modeled behavior for other politicians; suspect that this has happened at state-level now, and not to the ultimate benefit of the people.
fyi – ‘retiring’ Congressman Mark Souder was one of the orignal plotters in the eventually successful effort to unseat Gingrich
edit – not meant as reply to nina
Mr. Gillon is there ever a tension or a struggle in your writing to balance the narrative with cold hard historical facts? Do you worry about giving light to the facts while keeping your readers engaged in the “drama”?
Gingrish was initially quiet on impeachment. Remember he had his own “private” issues, and he had all these lans with Clinton. His base was upset with him for not speaking out against Clinton’s morality. He gave one speech about rhe affair. He was never a driving force in the House effort to impeach Clinton. The relationship between the two men is cordial but not friendly today. Clinton is still angry that Newt allowed impeachment to go forward. Thinks he could have done more to stop it. Gingrich blames Clinton for detrailing their grand plans and ending his chance of being a statesman.
Can you talk a bit about Erskine Bowles? I know you interviewed him several times for the book.
Why was he uniquely suited for the role of intercessor between Clinton and the GOP? And why do you think he was willing to come back and head up this latest attempt to address Social Security issues?
Dr. Gillon, I don’t know if you address this in your book—how do we stop this dismantling of Social Security?
great question. The answer is “Yes.” It is always a struggle. The challenge is to tell a story, to create a narrative that will keep interest, but to weave into the narrative important points and themes that will educate and clarify. It is a constant struggle. I have to confess that I haven’t figured it out yet :)
Bowles was a close friend of Clinton, but he also, as a banker from North Carolina, had ties to conservatives. What everyone liked and respected about him is that he is a man without an ego. Someone told me that you hire Bowles you are looking to make a deal. That is what he does: he makes deals. He finds the common ground. He is low key. He is surprisingly apolitical.
Thanks Dr. Gillon. I recently completed grad school and I am a filmmaker. And hope some day to perhaps take some books–such as yours–and turn them into a mini series. Do you think The Pact will become a mini series someday?
Newt’s still tossing bombs — as Steve Benen says, he and other Cons get away with things that, if a non-Con had uttered them, would be grounds for permanent banishment from public life.
Dr. Gillon, was Clinton aware of how devastating the proposed “reform” would be to retired Americans? Or could he plead ignorance as the horror stories of the high overhead rates of the Chilean and UK privatized plans hadn’t hit the news yet?
Thanks Margot; same question sir.
I simply tell the story of the unique political, personal, and economic moment that created this prospect of “reform” back in 1997 and how Monica derailed it. Back then the prospect of reform was made much easier by the projected budget surplus. The belief was that it could be done and be less painful. That is clearly no longer possible.
The GOP has learned this lesson they are allowing no compromise with Obama. Obama however dreams of recreating these glory days.
I don’t think Clinton believed that he was gutting social security. he believed that the system needed to be reformed; that it could not be sustained. There was general consensus on that part. The hard part was how to change it. I think he was looking for the best deal possible in 1997-98 and then hoping to improve on it later.
Since there is no compromise and Monica caused that. Is there any chance any outside event could get the 2 sides to compromise and not just compromise to help big business or the rich.
Thats a good point. What surprised me most when I was working on this book was the sharp contrast between the public position and the private discussions between Clinton and Gingrich. Everyone on the policy side told me that Gingrich was really two people: in public he was a fire-breathing bomb thrower. Behind closed doors, however, he was a pragmatic negotiator. Who ever would have thought that Clinton and Gingrich were holding secret meetings in 1997. Is it posible that Republican leaders are doing the same today? Bashing Obama in public to please the tea-party but looking to make deals in private?
Can you talk about what opposition you’ve had to the book? What nuances you share that perhaps a certain party would be against and why? As a historian do you feel you are able to avoid political agendas?
Its hard for me to see anything happening soon. In 1997 they had the surplus at their back. The Republicans had a leader — Gingrich — who wanted to leave a positive legacy. None of that is true today. The Republicans seem emboldened.
this is terrific reading and I am now further disillusioned with the president I once thought “great”
now, in hind sight, clinton did far more harm then good, nafta, not re-certifying the fairness doctrine, allowing without a fight the repeal of glass seagal and trying to privitise or eliminate social security
not too happy with clinton anymore
In retrospect, the Clinton Presidency looks worse and worse. As does Obama’s which seeks to repeat Clinton’s mistakes and continue Bush’s. My main question is why was Clinton so eager to “fix” Social Security. The annual surpluses really took off during his Administration so what was the rush? Also why was taking the cap off the FICA off the table? And why if Gingrich was so interested in this did he torpedo it by going all apeshit over Lewinsky? Afterall he was getting BJs from his mistress at the same time he was condemning Clinton for his with Lewinsky.
I really do make an effort to be fair-minded to everyone involved while also telling the story accurately. The reaction to the book has been typical: Clinton supporters think I am too easy on Gingrich and too hard on the President; conservatives think it is a puff piece for Clinton.
The irony here is that Irwin Kellner has effectively and repeatedly debunked the scare stories about Social Security’s running out of money.
The short version: So long as the economy’s long-term growth averages at least 2.7% a year — and that’s subpar growth, as the average for 1929 through 2004 (years that include the whole of the Great Depression) was 3.6% — Social Security never runs out of money. Period. The only reason the Trustees can talk about it running out of money is because they use insanely low growth projection averages of less than 2 percent per year.
It is funny that you say back then the prospect of reform was made easier by the big surplus, while now they are using the deficits as their reasoning behind “having” to “fix” Social Security.
It seems like no matter what the situation people are always trying to “fix” Social Security.
Why do the Democrats feel that they need to cut a program that is on sound footing and is immensely popular?
now how are we going to stop obama from doing what clinton, reagan, bush set out to do with ss?
Do you mean emboldened to privatize? What a scary thought.
In relating the book to what’s happening now I didn’t mean to put responsibility on Dr. Gillon to address the current deficit commission. His book addresses the secret Newt/Clinton deal.
Is it possible in telling this story that people will second guess the political landscape and perhaps realize republican and democratic leadership have more in common then not? Do you have goals or merely interest in revealing The Pact?
Clinton really had three presidencies: the initial two years before the Republican revolution in 1994. Then ther was the Dick Morris “triangulation” period. It was after the 1996 election that Clinton gets his feet under him and starts laying out his agenda. It was legacy time and social security reform was going to be his legacy. He believed that he needed to do something really big if he was going to be remembered as a “great” president.
such a good point
Since Obama appears to lack Clinton’s roving eye, what “Monica Lewinsky” might save us from Obama’s dismantling Social Security?
I know there were many plans put on the table by members of the Danforth committee, but none had the votes to be accepted by all.
Can you tell us if there were parts that were commonly accepted by all? And how did that relate to the agreement made between Clinton and Gingrich?
That is a good point and reveals the differences of opinion on the subject. Within te Clinton administration there was a clear consensus that social security was not viable and needed t be changed. That seems to be the conventional wisdom in DC these days as well.
Just repeat that phrase over and over in public. “Obama’s Monica Lewinsky.” I got nothin’…
Part of the problem with “the pact” that I discuss in the book is that it was very general. It was an arrangement worked out between Gingrich and Clinton. The general idea was that Clinton would support unpopular proposals — raising the age requirements, for example — while Gingrich would support using the surplus for the system (instead of tax cuts). They had worked out an arrangement with Bill Archer to put together a bill in the House and a similar one in the senate. But Monica broke before they got to the specifics. Clinton was going to announce a bold plan in his state of the union address, and Archer’s committee was going to produce a bill within a few weeks.
For anyone who’s interested, here are the other proposals that were put forth by members of the Kerrey-Danforth commission:
Reform Proposal of Senators J. Robert Kerrey and John C. Danforth
Reform Proposal of Senator Alan K. Simpson and Congressmen J. Alex McMillan and Porter J. Goss
Reform Proposal of Commissioner Peter G. Peterson
Reform Proposal of Commissioner Robert Greenstein
Reform Proposal of Commissioner Richard L. Trumpka
How much do you think the drive for “reform” is just an attempt to get another big pile of money to gamble on wall street so they can re-inflate the bubble to make the economy look better than it really is.
How did Clinton perceive/understand the “Social Security problem”?? We get lots of Peterson and WashingtonPost propaganda today about a crisis, but economists say this is nonsense. So what did Clinton think was true at the time, and what did he consider to be the underlying cause of this problem?
I don’t know if you need another Monica. The obstacles to changing social security are already formidable. It is unclear, even given all the advantages in 1997-98, that Clinton and Gingrich really could have passed something. It is even less likely now.
Reading this just blows my mind. The Monica Lewinsky affair (which annoyed the hell out of me at the time) actually saved social security from Clinton’s triangulation?!? What seemed like bad fortune back then, now seems like gift from the love gods.
What Clinton did for NAFTA, Welfare Reform, and the repeal of Glass-Steagal… has was prevented from doing the same to social security by Linda Tripp! I never ever thought I would find myself feeling thankful to “that woman”.
Of course, that was a big part of the deal in 1997 — that there be individual accounts and that some of the trust fund be invested in the stock market. That seemed like a great idea back then. Its not so attractive now.
Brad DeLong, who served as Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Treasury under Larry Summers during the Clinton administration, recently said what he believed the Clinton plan to be:
Does that square with your understanding?
Because those who know the truth are campaign-contribution captives of the financial-industry wizards that wrecked our economy and can’t wait to get their hands on our old-age insurance money — and those who don’t know the truth have been bombarded by decades of propaganda by Pete Peterson? That’s my guess.
There are too many corporate interests who would profit from the destruction of Social Security for the truth about its long-term stability to be common knowledge, in my opinion.
That’s why I asked Dr. Gillon if Clinton realized the disastrous effect his “reform” plan would have. Apparently, Clinton had bought into the Peterson package hook, line and sinker.
I’m nt an expert on social security, but it was clear that Clinton believed that the aging of the baby boom generation, and the longer life span of the generation, would place unaceptable demands on the system. That may or may not be true, but there was no one in the White House that I came across who questioned that view.
Thanks for this.
2000 would have been a great time to privatize SS & have all us boobs invest in stocks. /s
Dr Gillon, thanks for taking time today to chat.
What ‘deal’ do you suppose Erskine Bowles has been tasked to make on today’s commission? What’s his current relationship with the further polarizing GOP?
Speaking of Gingrich, for someone who once aspired, he’s really gone around the bend.
This is interesting. I had not seen this before. It seems in keeping with the general idea. One caution, however: As Clinton and Gingrich discussed various ideas they asked Treasury to run different projections. Nothing was locked in at the time, but this certainly reflects the general thinking that was going on at the top, even if the specific proposals were not going to be part of the plan.
And now, with all the data in from countries that did privatize and whose residents now must deal with 30% overhead costs as opposed to the less than 1% costs of Social Security, any alleged professional who wasn’t bamboozled by Pete Peterson’s Concord Coalition and Fiscal Times garbage would know what a bad deal privatization is for all but the banksters.
DeLong also objects to the notion that investing some of the trust fund in the stock market constitutes “privatization,” and that it applied only to private individual accounts.
But I note in the book that you say the Kerrey-Danforth folks considered both a form of privatization:
Right now the plutocrats’ propaganda machine, AKA the mainstream media, is basically ignoring the story of the deficit commission. This gives us an opportunity. We need to get the meme out that cutting benefits or any privatization will destroy Social Security and we need to get it out to those who will raise a ruckus the most. We also need to get anti-memes out that will negate the memes that the Cutters will try to spread when the commission is done. We need powerful but simple frames that will activate the nation’s values.
This is the movement I want to be involved in for the rest of this year. Is there an organization that is not in the Veal Pen that is currently doing this work beyond the blogs? Is FDL? Where do I go?
That is the central question. The president clearly gave Bowles clear goals. That is how Bowles operates. The President provides goals and general parameters and then gives him the room to negotiate within those parameters. I don’t know what kind of relationship he has with the current Republican leadership. He was close to Armey, Gingrich, et al. but its a whole new cast of characters. Bowles has close ties with moderate and conservative Dems as well. That is where he operates: building coaltions in the center with moderate Dems and Republicans. But are there any moderate Republicans these days?
Run different projections, huh? Thanks for that, an important fact.
And an important caveat to us, too. It’s like the health care projections we kept seeing during the run-up to HCR — not particularly assuring. And less so if we let the same folks do the projection work who thought the last decade without Glass-Steagall were great.
A little perspective on the budget. There were 4 years of budget surpluses from 1998 through 2001. However, two point need to be made. First, revenues were being fed by the bubbles Clinton and Greenspan were blowing. Anyone remember the dot com blast? Well it was only part of the good times Bill and Alan were pumping up. Second, when Clinton came into office in 1993 SS surpluses had actually dipped a little to $46.8 billion. By the first year of budget surplus in 1998, they were up $99.4 billion. The total budget surplus was $69.3 billion. Meaning that without the Social Security surplus, the budget would have been in deficit. Indeed if you factor in the SS surpluses, Clinton had only 2 years of budget surplus 1999-2000, and 1999 without the extra oomph of the SS surplus was almost a wash ($1.9 billion surplus). 2001 had a real surplus of $86.4 billion, but the dot com bubble crash, 9/11, and the Bush Administration spending policies put an end to what was mostly an illusory boom fed by a bubble and Social Security surpluses.
Which countries privatized?
It does seem to be some sort of synthesis of the three different camps you outline in the Kerrey-Danforth commission:
P. 209
I can’t recall the details of this now, but there was lots of debate over what was meant by “Privatization” and how the money (and how much) would be invested. The details are in the book, but I just don’t recall them now.
thanks for refreshing my memory!
Chile, for one.
That’s just craziness. First, the trust fund made up of surpluses from previous years had already been dumped into general revenues and spent. Going forward would not have helped matters because the government was still using those funds to enhance revenues and lower the real deficit size. You can’t use the same money twice. You can’t use it for revenues and then turn around and invest it in the stock market. The 1982 Social Security reform was an enormous con, but this isn’t even that. It’s doesn’t even work as a con.
One of the things I had a problem with when I read the book was the timeline of the Social Security talks, and who was involved when.
Can you run that down? Who did they bring into the talks, and at what point did they bring them in? Were there distinct stages of agreement, etc?
It is important to keep in mind that there was a unique moment in the late 1990s when all this seemed like a good idea. Many of the assumptions that guided these “reform” proposals now seem out-of-date. After watching their 401ks drop in value over the past few years, the idea of using the stock market for social security seems much less attractive. Bowles had a tough assignment in 1997; it is even harder now. And the politics are more confused. Republcians have no reason to buy into a politically sensitive reform such as this. It is easier to stand on the sidelines and shout. Dems need their base more than ever. I don’t see this happening any time soon.
That’s the only one I know about. Are there others?
That would be interesting to see in table form, Hugh.
There’s a link to the 10-year chart of the S&P500 in my 57. 10 years ago just happens to be the peak of the dot-com bubble. (To be honest, I would have gone a bit farther back, but cnbc’s longest choice is 10 years. I think cnbc does not intend any irony, and the peak will soon drop out of their sample, moving forward into the dot-com bust.)
Again why was taking the cap off FICA not on the table? The whole focus of the proposal is to bilk lower and middle income workers to the benefit of the wealthy. Not only do their FICA taxes not increase but being more sophisticated investors, and benefiting generally from what would have been (in theory) a huge capital injection into markets would have seen their own investment increase in value.
“low-paying US Treasury bonds” again important to note these are not T-bills, but special government internal financial instruments.
Good question: the talks between the two begin shortly after the 1996 presidential election. Bowles brokers a couple of smaller deals. The big event was the “Balanced Budget Act.” Clinton and Gingrich worked together and both saw their numbers rise. Su they started launching bigger plans. The talks went through the sumemr of 1997. The secret meeting that I write about took place in October 1997. The plan was for Clinton to announce the initiative in his State of the Union. Both sides wanted to keep ss off the agenda in the 1998 elections, and then push something big through in the lame duck session. Remember that Clinton had a big social security conference in the midst of impeachment in December 1998. That was supposed to kick off the congressional vote. Instead, the Senate was debating impeachment.
I know Lindsey Graham was meeting with Rahm and broadly supportive shortly after the inauguration:
http://firedoglake.com/2009/02/23/social-security-white-house-triangulates-against-pete-peterson/
As were McConnell and Boehner I think.
There were other people involved in the discussions as well. A handful of congressional allies were involved, mainly they were asked if they could produce the votes for various proposals. Treasury was running all the numbers for all the efforts. Gingrich had talked about creating an “echo chamber” to build public support for their ideas.
Pushing something big through the lame duck session — because many who would be voting on it would not have to worry about electoral repercussions?
I’m curious because both Boehner and Conyers have warned that they believe Obama wants to do the same here. Of course, Boehner is worried about increased taxes and Coyners is worried about Social Security and Medicare cuts, but it appears to be a similar strategy.
If Obama knew what was good for the U.S. public he’d toss Gingrich’s bombs right back at him.
Income rose at all levels under Clinton, and the poverty level dropped. These are not characteristics of a bubble.
It’s my understanding that Clinton opposed repeal of Glass Steagall, but signed the bill because it had a veto-proof majority. Seems pretty unfair, albeit typical, to pin Congress’ screw-up on Clinton.
That was exactly the calculation and part of the deal with Gingrich. Reps had been burned politically on social security. It has always been an issue that favored Democrats, for obvious reasons. Clinton was willing to take it off the table in the 1998 election in return for Gingrich’s support. They felt they had a better chance pushing it through during a lame duck session when there would be less political pressure.
Just how did two manipulative people like this find each other both willing to sell out their principles to get laws passed.
We tried Newt/Bush’s way for 8 years it hasn’t worked. Ideas to the Left of Clinton are now being discussed as real world evidence shows National Healthcare is cheaper better than Private Healthcare.
Or in the case of Greece a default like Argentina did is better than a government bailout.
Why did both these leaders prefer the ideas their sides talked about rather than investigating wether they did or did not work?
Newt hates the Elite why did he never do the fact checking of his side claims or even more surprising Clinton’s claims in public at least.
Why all the yelling and ignoring what the other guy says?
At this blog we will demand a link if you make a claim and even then we will discuss the quality of the information or try and disprove it.
But the important thing is we will give it a read.
These guys compromised on things like financial reform, NAFTA etc and never did any real research it seems. Granted I maybe wrong about them doing research but if they did then why did they suck at research?
I did see the “echo chamber” comment.
So Clinton was going to set the table in his 1998 SOTU, but they didn’t plan to bring it to a vote until after the November 1998 election?
I have no doubt that Bowles is dusting off the old game plan and planning on using it again … this time without Monica.
I think you answered this in #85 above.
Basically, the GOP had more to lose than the Democrats in voting for Social Security reform? Or was it because they were going to primarily rely on GOP votes to pass it?
Clinton had planned a number of forums across the country. They wanted to use 1998 to build support. They also needed to give the various congressional committees time to digest bills. Archer was going to produce one in the House. They realized this was going to be the tricky part: discusing and debating it throughout 1998 but keeping it out of the November elections. In essence, Clinton promised not to run ads against Reps who were favoring reform.
Yep, got hisself a prez who doesn’t f around, as near as one can tell.
http://www.cbo.gov/budget/data/historical.pdf
I was working off an older copy I have which goes up to 2005. This is the more recent one. I had to find it through google. CBO has done some kind of revamping of its home page which makes it useless.
As we come to the end of this great discussion,
Steve, Thank you for stopping by the Lake and discussing Social Security and The Pact with us.
Jane, Thank you for Hosting this great discussion.
Thanks all.
That is exactly what it looks like — Bowles rerunning the same playbook.
It’s also why your book is so important, and will continue to be important, as this plays out.
It demonstrates that this is not something they’re doing because it’s a necessary response to what’s happening right now. It’s been decades in the making.
It’s like Pete Peterson’s version of Sherman’s march to the sea. Inexorable and unrelenting.
Clinton beleived that he would lose the left on this initiative. Gephardt was strongly opposed. He was also worried about Gore, which is why he kept him out of the discussions. Republicans feared giving up tax cuts for social security reform would alienate their conservative base, and cost them votes.
Yes, thank you all -was fascinating reading along
Thanks! I’ve really enjoyed this VERY thoughtful discussion.
Thanks to everyone. And thank you so much, Steven. I can’t tell you how much reading this book helped me to put the Social Security “reform” push in perspective.
Highly recommended to everyone.
Re: “echo chamber” — it might be helpful to see if the echo chamber was already working on it, in the form of papers from Heritage Foundation and their ilk. Typically there was some lead time between the papers and the Wurlitzer-media picking it up.
Yes, exactly; I was just looking for references to the “lock box” which Gore discussed on the campaign trail in 2000 election.
It’s so funny that Gephardt thought that opposing this was his ticket to the White House, and Gore was looking over his shoulder at Gephardt for the 2000 nomination.
Now that Gephardt is in the private sector working as a quasi-lobbyist, his “populism” seems to be rapidly fading.
Actually it depends on the nature of the bubble. The upside of a broadly based bubble tends to raise all ships. The housing bubble was largely investment oriented so there was less spillover into employment and wages.
Heritage? Brookings.
Big donations from Peterson. And Alice Rivlin is on the Deficit Commission:
http://fdlaction.firedoglake.com/2010/05/10/obama-packs-debt-committee-with-supportes-of-social-security-benefit-cuts-and-privatization/
Peterson has been buying his “experts” for decades. The same way the Kaiser Foundation did on health care.
Mr. Gillon:
Why are Democrats like Clinton and Obama so enamored by Pete Peterson? Don’t they understood that Peterson is anti-ethical of what they claim to represent? And do they really want to destroy the Democratic Party by trashing Social Security?
Yes, and Peterson’s pledged his fortune to it. Why, I don’t know.
I used to think that people like Gingrich or even more Bush hated the Establishment. But now I think these were all pseudo-fights. Both Gingrich and Bush are absolutely part of the elite. We see these everywhere nowadays, squabbles between Democrats and Republicans on the surface but underneath both are promoting an elite corporatist agenda. This is what makes Gillon’s take interesting because it shows that Clinton and Gingrich were engaged in the same behaviors back in the 90s.
That! is the question.
If McCain were president, it would be easier to mobilize our side.
Having a (nominally) Democratic president, who inspires a fair few true believers, makes the task difficult.
DeLong scummed out; I can’t believe that rooster. Would Krugman be for us on this?
Also, what about Simon Johnson and James Kwak over at baselinescenario.com?
It’s obvious that Gephardt was as big a fraud as John Edwards turned out to be.
Jane, this comment made me start thinking about how as children we somehow came to believe that all the adults were way smarter than we. The parents, Rabbis, Pastors, Governmental Officials. Now that we’re all growed-up, we see that what we thought as children either was wrong or that it didn’t matter. In the sense that, people like Gephard, Gore, and, well, pretty much all of them, actually do “know” or have knowledge that we don’t. They just don’t seem to know what to do with it.
(thank you for enduring my soap boxishness.)
I would submit that you need to do more research on this matter. You could start here – http://thestrangedeathofliberalamerica.com/bill-clinton-glass-steagall-and-the-current-financial-and-mortgage-crisis-part-two-of-an-indepth-investigative-report.html
Clinton was not an innocent.
Isn’t the problem really that the government since the Reagan Administration has been borrowing from the Social Security to cover defense spending deficits to the tune of 3 trillion dollars and they have been scrambling to figure out how to weasel out of paying it back with interest???
Thank you Jane and Mr Gillon, for this wonderful discussion. I am going to buy the book this week-end.
Do you think that the credit explosion and consequent stock market bubble did not create funding for a lot of new businesses that did hiring? And by the way, the credit explosion where you could get a credit card for your dog started during the clinton years and played a big part of the economic boom and stock market bubble during that time and also had a big part in creating jobs as well as driving the consumer driven demand model that our economy relies much too heavily upon now.
Another clinton era decision that temporarily boosted the economy … by allowing in cheap goods, which kept down inflation … was his free trade treaties. The negative repercussions were largely down the road since it takes time to build manufacturing facilities and transfer the jobs overseas.
The biggest clinton apologist joke of all: clinton didn’t want glass-steagall repealed, although he did little to stump against it and had in his cabinet the biggest proponent of it of all: robert rubin. But that’s not bill’s fault, rubin fell like an asteroid from the sky into his cabinet.
Not also to mention that the financialization of our economy picked up some very heavy steam during the clinton years and most, if not all, of those sleazy corporate and wall street practices that came to a head in 2002-2003, when Enron and Worldcom and wall street’s dot.com frauds got exposed, began during the clinton years.
So, go ahead, call it CDS … more commonly referred to as objectivity, but those are the facts. And this comes from someone who voted for him once.
The clinton apologists are just as arrogant, and ultimately harmful, as the obamabots and the bushbackers. You’ll be hard pressed to find anyone that has done more damage to the democratic party than bill clinton.
Z
DeLong at heart remains a neoliberal. Krugman is an Establishment liberal. When faced with the choice between that Establishment and the logic of his own analyses, he invariably opts to return to the Establishment fold. Simon Johnson (and James Kwak) used to be on the inside but now find themselves on the outs with the Establishment. So they might go either way. I can’t remember if they have ever taken a position on SS. Anyone further off the Establishment (Stiglitz, Galbraith, Baker, etc.) than they would almost certainly disagree with the attacks on SS.
Yes.
Excellent work! Clinton also managed to cancel all government regulation of commercial banks, opening the way to banksters writing all the regulations from there on out. What a guy!
This is a much needed discussion. I remember reading on counterpunch.org about this years ago, on how Clinton had to use all his political capital to save his own ass during the Lewinsky when he was 100 percent willing to stick the knife in Social Security (and probably still would) if he was president.
These quotes are especially striking.
“
Clinton was always comfortable with the GOP, and dissed the liberal base at every opportunity. It’s very similar to Obama’s constant pandering to them. I believe it’s different this time, though. I don’t think Obama’s going to get a GOP Congress (even though his behaviour in his first year suggested he was prepping for one with all his “bipartisan” talk) to
gutreform Social Security.Thank God for Monica Lewinsky, eh?
I think Heritage is where stuff got laundered, then sent over to their TownHall outlet for dispersion (and you know the rest of the story with Armstrong Williams/Maggie Gallagher and the like during the Bush years).
Brookings may have been the originator, but dispersion may have been through Heritage. We’d need to counter every head of the hydra.
[edit: Forgot about the bloody Cato Institute. They were also great about the same payola dispersion method. See The Derailing of Social Security: How The Cato Institute and Heritage Foundation paved the way for privatization, by Diana Zuckerman, Ph.D.]
Clinton was the best Democrat the GOP ever had.
There was no GOP policy that Clinton wouldn’t co-opt. He was always open to Republican ideas. He hated liberal ideas, though.
The three relevant financial events of the Clinton Presidency were the easy money policy worked out with Greenspan, Gramm-Leach-Bliley which repealed Glass-Steagall, and the Commodities Futures Modernization Act (CFMA) which opened the floodgates on unregulated derivatives.
Big unanswered question why both sides of the corporate party hear what they want and don’t research or look for real world confirmation like we do here.
Pity, Gillon left at #93. But his work shows how deep and early the rot penetrated the Democratic party, long before Bush came on the scene. And it goes to show too how long the goal of dismantling Social Security has been on the Democratic agenda.
And all three of them benefited bill clinton either by artificially boosting the economy, which boosted his re-election prospects and made wall street his fanboy, or by directly catering to wall street, which got him campaign cash and partially is what allowed him to make tens of millions of dollars once he left office for giving speeches. But ask the arrogant clinton supporters and they’ll tell you that their hero bill was forced to do it, of course, and it all just happened to benefit him.
Z
Was it bill clinton’s intentions to do away with Social Security altogether?
Wow. Why can’t liberals find a real FDR.
Perhaps liberals are easily taken in by someone who can merely talk the walk and easily fall in love zealously that anyone pointing out any defect is attacked right away.
It seems all Dems are really Repubs or want to be repubs. So sad.
I thought it would be many decades before we heard of Monica again. Sadly, it was only about one.
There are lots of better subjects to discuss. Even though I agree with very little of Move On’s* positions, I agree here. Move on.
*Even though their name is a misnomer. They never Moved On. They are still fighting the battle of Lewinsky and Gore under different guises.
What I take away from this story is how captured Clinton was by the conventional wisdom among economists trained after 1975. There was, as Stiglitz, Krugman, Peter Diamond, Brad DeLong, and countless others whose education in advanced economics was more than adequate, absolutely no reason to remove the SS guarantee, and it would have been (and still is) criminal to subcontract its administration to crooks and liars. We get enough of that with our own private money.
The state of professional economics is currently a very sad one.
What I want to know is, how do we defeat the Catfood Commission? Jane has already pointed out the fact that its findings and recommendations are timed to hit a lame-duck Congress just before the holidays. I suspect that a lot of energy will be diverted (intentionally) toward the November elections and away from preparing a massive pushback campaign against the Catfood recipe.
The answer to that would be: Yes.
Yes, that is exactly what this is all about and what they are doing.
Thanks Steven Gillon! Amazing behind the scenes story.
Truth really is stranger than fiction sometimes.
Yeah I thought about that too.
I think it amounts to Peterson’s legacy as a class warrior for the rentier’s of Round Hill Road. They are still determined to erase every last trace of FDR from the nation.
Well said Mr. Gillon. None of those involved at the time in the doing or in trying to influence the doing of the change thought then or think now that what was proposed was a “gutting social security”.
The Society of Actuaries advice was being followed – and as an actuary working in various areas including pensions and social security, I agreed with their advice.
The system can not be sustained if mortality improvements are not reflected via a “normal retirement age” that increase for future retirees – but our folks on the left choose to not understand as they wish to bash Clinton. Since two-thirds of the funding shortfall is due to people living longer, and therefore spending more years in retirement, it is appropriate to fix this by making the amount available at age 62 less as a percentage of the normal retirement age amount, reflecting the fact the age 62 becomes earlier and earlier compared to the increasing normal retirement age.
Likewise the COLA change was to fulfill the promise that a seniors standard of living did nor decrease – but also did not increase unfairly like it did under the COLA changes in the 70′s that took years to get legislation to fix.
President Clinton’s plan also proposed that some 20% of the $2.7 trillion in new money paid into the Trust Fund be invested in the stock market. Stock holdings would be kept below 14.6% of all Trust Fund assets and would average about 3.4% of the total value of the stock market over the next 50 years (via index funds). Because the plan assumed that returns from the stock market would average 6.75%, as opposed to 2.8% from the bonds in the Social Security Trust Fund, actuaries could predict that these investments would extend the life of the Trust Fund for an additional six years, to 2055.
Of course the actuaries use conservative assumptions in their 3 annual projections – even in the “non-conservative projection”. If the Social Security actuaries are “wrong” and growth for the next 75 years equals growth from the last 75 years, then one-third of the projected shortfall disappears. A better way to insure a bit of safety is of course to remove the wage cap for both tax and benefits – thus keeping the system from being called welfare the way a means test on benefits would do, or not giving a benefit increase, albeit it small, for increase taxes paid by the better off.
The Society of Actuaries – and myself – and the Office of the Actuary at Social Security – discuss the math constantly, but the GOP lie so as to destroy the system, while those on the left seem of late to want to pretend Clinton was not increasing benefits, increasing safety of benefits, increasing equity of benefits, for seniors. As House Minority Leader Dick Gephardt stated in 98, individual accounts “can be part of the answer” albeit only as an addition to current payroll taxes.
Indeed by putting Monica into this Social Security book it becomes obvious that the intent was to smear – and not to report history. I note that there is not a word (in this review) on Clinton’s desire to use the surplus to add to the SS trust fund (in contrast to Bush’s tax cut for the rich), nor is there discussion of the 401k type payroll savings that anyone could have with a piece of the surplus used as a “gift”/”employer’s contribution” annually – the America Saving idea for everyone. I hope the book is better on these topics, but I’ll let others read it to find out and post a comment.
Yep smear Clinton – I wonder we must wait for an actuary to document the historical facts and put them into a book – but then a book of facts would not sell to the Obama (actually the Clinton hating and not necessarily “Obama”) left.
Indeed – with the repeated lies about Clinton that find there way here, I can understand how you feel.
Steve
I thought I knew the “plan” – and it was not much more than throwing a lot of money toward seniors and workers so as to hide the surplus from GOP tax cutters.
How in the world did you come to the conclusion that the plan was to privatize SS – Clinton never said a world – never indicated to anyone – that he was in favor of any privatization – the closest he got was a statement that he was “open” to all ideas.
Maybe the extensive interviews he did with Clinton, Gingrich, Bowles and others on the subject that are cited and footnoted in the book?
Dean Baker wrote about the same thing in The Plunder and the Blunder, which was where I first read about it. And it was Erskine Bowles who is quoted — directly — saying that the Lewinski affair stopped the plans from going through.
Maybe you should read the book before drawing your many conclusions?
Does Rob Kuttner qualify as a “smear” artist too?
From The Squandering of America, p. 176:
Capitalization and bold are mine.
You’ve reached a lot of conclusions and are asking others to do the work to see if they’re true?
You seem to ignore several things. First, Social Security surpluses, the Trust Fund, were traded for special government bonds (not Treasuries) and spent annually as general revenues. So that money was gone. Going forward from that point, SS surplus money could be taken out for investment in the index funds tied to the stock markets. The great majority would still have been treated as ordinary revenue and spent. However, the money going for stock investment, i.e. the privatization aspect, would have been offset by projected surpluses in the regular budget. But those projections were based on bubblenomics. There was only one year, 2001, where the government experienced a significant budget surplus not tied to Social Security, and that was followed by a bursting of the bubble, recession, and Bush. So it was never a realistic plan. The government fell back into deficit and there were no budget surpluses to trade against reduced contributions from SS (if the investment scheme had gone through). And neither Democrats nor Republicans were going to raise taxes elsewhere to make up for the contributions the surpluses made to the regular budget.
It is good that the Clinton-Gingrich plan failed but its real importance lies in what reveals about the attitude of Clinton and the Democrats toward Social Security. The FICA cap was never addressed. This was all a ploy to spin a portion of SS off into the private sector, an attempt to keep the bubble well capitalized and greased by public monies. With the current deficits, this is off the table. And keeping the ongoing bubble in stocks inflated can be more easily be accomplished by the Fed’s ZIRP policies.
I should point out too that since most of the Social Security surpluses even under a private investment plan would still have ended up spent as general revenues, the day of reckoning where the bulk of that money would have to be repaid through higher taxes would have been delayed but it would still have come. And we have seen how little interest either party has in actually doing that, preferring instead to cut benefits.
The move to privatized accounts as part of Social Security may take the form of opening up the Federal government employees’ savings/pension supplement, Thrift Savings Plan (TSP), to Social Security participants. The TSP is a family of low expense ratio index funds, anchored by one that tracks treasury yields. This seemingly staid Vanguardian plan has already had a mini-crisis when frequent switches between funds were allowed and made easy. Some participants became near-to day traders, and expense ratios started to climb. The rules were tightened. Perhaps just to bring overhead down. Perhaps also to avoid volatility in the event of generalized abandonment of a particular fund or funds.