Post Paints FDR as Moderate on
Social Security
Story focuses on different legislative
styles of Bush and Roosevelt. It then ignores enormous differences
between then and now.
By Dan Gainor [1]
April 27, 2005
The saying
goes: Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it
especially if they write for The Washington Post. Reporter Dana
Milbank did his own comparison of the original debate on Social
Security with the current battle. That description painted President
Franklin Delano Roosevelt as moderate and criticized radical
plans to change the system, similar to the fawning treatment FDR
received from the press as president.
That assessment took three fourths of the Posts
Federal Page in the April 26, 2005, issue of the paper. The article,
headlined Social Security Debate Has Echoes of 1935, had its own
echoes of the 1935 support Roosevelt received from the press as
Milbank focused on the Roosevelt compromise that was at odds with
the most liberal members of his party.
Essentially, Milbank attempted to redefine the Social
Security debate by using 2,000 words to portray Bush on the side of
those who have proposed the most far-reaching changes to the
program, pitting him against GOP moderates and virtually all
Democrats. That argument paints any attempt at personal accounts as
a radical solution.
Milbank described the situation as a difference in
styles between the presidents: Roosevelt's struggles in 1935 were
in some ways similar to President Bush's attempt to steer a revised
Social Security program through Congress in 2005 but their
legislative styles are vastly different.
The article tried to describe much of the 1935 battle
as a conflict between the two political parties when the Democrats
controlled the vast majority of both houses of Congress. In 1935,
Republicans made up only 25 percent of the House and 22 percent of
the Senate. Milbank downplayed that huge difference. At first, he
claimed: Like FDR's, Bush's party enjoys control of both chambers
of Congress, though by smaller margins. But elsewhere in the story,
he was more honest, pointing out that Republicans were badly
outnumbered.
Currently, Republicans only hold a slim margin over
Democrats in both the House and Senate. While there are 232
Republicans in the House out of 435, there are only 55 Republicans
in the Senate not enough to overcome a Democratic filibuster on
any issue. Thats an issue that Roosevelt didnt have to contend
with.
Milbank turned to liberal historian Robert Dallek to
compare the presidents. Roosevelt sought to cool the passions in
his own party, whereas Bush is trying to kindle passion in his
party. In 1934, Congress tilted decisively to the left [and]
Roosevelt was more moderate than lots of people in Congress,
historian Robert Dallek said. Bush, by contrast, is more to the
right on Social Security than many of his GOP colleagues in the
House.
Milbanks comparison missed some essential facts that
he either glossed over or completely ignored. They include:
-
Milbank emphasized that the Roosevelt administration worked
for 18 months to build support for its approach. The plan took an
additional seven months to move through Congress. Bush, on the
other hand, is doing both at the same time and hasnt even had six
months in his entire second term.
The Great Depression was a cataclysmic event that required
emergency action. Even with that, it took Roosevelt more than two
years by Milbanks tally to take action. By contrast, Bushs
proposal comes at time of economic growth and low unemployment.
The article referred to Louisiana Democrat Sen. Huey Long as a
populist and failed to point out that he had run Louisiana as a
corrupt dictatorship when he was governor.
Contrary to Milbanks claim, Bush has proposed compromises and
his positions do not reflect the traditional conservative view of
Social Security which advocates complete privatization promoted
by groups such as the Cato Institute.
If Milbank wanted to make historical comparisons, he could have introduced his readers to Carlo Charles Ponzi, another famous character from the early 1900s. Ponzi was convicted of fraud for convincing people to invest with promises of outlandish gains. He then used some of the new funds to pay off previous investors. (The rest he used to live the good life.) It was the original pay-as-you-go system. The more investors he had, the more top-heavy his plan was and in 1920 it came crashing down. His name became synonymous with pyramid schemes and, in fact, it is seldom even presented except in the phrase Ponzi scheme.