This is a profoundly
welcome development in our politics, even if this reporter for the
Wall Street Journal wants to couch it as primarily a problem for Hillary Clinton.
For years, liberal Democrats have fought against proposals to cut Social Security benefits. Now, they’re pushing the party not just to defend benefits but to increase them, and that could present a problem for Hillary Clinton. […]
The liberals’ argument is that Social Security benefits are meager and that people in retirement need more, not less, money. Some also contend that concerns about the program’s solvency are exaggerated. And inside the Democratic Party, that argument is gaining traction. Legislation increasing benefits, and boosting payroll taxes to cover the cost, now has 58 co-sponsors in the House.
Former Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley, who is considering a Democratic presidential bid, told Iowa voters that the nation must expand benefits to help more people realize the American dream. Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D., Mass.) won 42 Democratic votes—with just two Democrats voting no—for a nonbinding resolution calling for a "sustainable expansion of benefits."
The liberals are correct, and we're gaining steam. Just witness
what the issue has done for the upcoming Maryland Senate primary between Reps. Donna Edwards and Chris Van Hollen. A guy who said approving things about trimming Social Security, catfood commissions, and grand bargains now believes the program should be expanded.
All of which has the Third Way's Jim Kessler sounding very petulant. "A commission is how it was solved before and it's how it will be solved in the future and everyone knows it." Because if you're Third Way, the only way to handle an issue as critical as our retirement crisis and how Americans will live in disability and/or old age is with an undemocratic commission, not answerable to voters.