I want my two dollars

I don't really like my Harry and Louise idea so much, on cool reflection. The point of the slot machine metaphor was supposed to be: more risk than you want. But it is might be taken as: markets are always high-risk gambling. That's not good. Let me try again.

I am proceeding on the assumption that legitimate objections to the privatization proposal will run as everyone anticipates. Mark Kleiman, just for example. (If you think what he is saying is totally off base, what I propose won't make sense.) Basically, it comes down to: the difference between defined-benefit and defined-contribution. How to make clear that you are being treated shabbily, even while acknowledging that the market might make you richer?

To build our frame, we want to know one specific fact: how much less are you guaranteed, if you go the no-risk option? Let's just say it's 80% of what you would be guaranteed now. But if it's higher or lower than that, it's OK. Adjust text accordingly. (And if you have the option of being guaranteed as much as now, this doesn't fly.)

Three 30 second TV spots. The idea would be to buy three successive ad spots during a single show. So these should appear about 15 minutes apart from each other. They tell an overall story. Dialogue must be snappy, like Tarantino-lite.

Spot #1: "A dollar"
We see Ed and Ted growing up together. Clips of them as teenagers on through middle-age. In each successive scene Ted asks Ed,"'a buck?" Clearly he is in need. Ed forks over. The only thing that makes this spot entertaining is that they dress in mildly silly ways: 50's, 60's, 70's, 80's, 90's ... To be continued.

Spot #2: "A Few Dollars More"
Ed is old, retirement age. Maybe it's humorously 10-20 years in the future so he and Ted are wearing faintly future fashion. Ted at the door. Big grin. [He comes across like John Cazale. Nervous, needy, a screw-up. Ed should be a no-nonsense guy.] "I come to pay back your money." "You come to pay back my money?" [Ed is slightly skeptical he's going to see his cash again.] "10 dollars!  Here it is. [Pleased with himself.] 4 bucks in cash. And 4 bucks [pauses for effect] in stock!" [Ed is waiting. Ted forges ahead.] "This 4 dollars in stock will be worth 8 dollars. I figure." "You figure?" "I figure." "Thank you for looking out for me, Ted. But I figure you owe me $2." To be continued.

Spot #3: "Fred?"
Ted: "I gave it to Fred." "Who's Fred?" [Now they are looking through binoculars out of Ed's window. Ted finds what he's looking for. Ed snatches the glasses away in irritated 'gimme that' fashion. A rich guy up the hill. He's sitting by the pool, holding up two $1 bills, in comically contented fashion.] "Why did you give him my money?" "I was having a crisis." "But why did you give him my money?" "Look, you can have $4 in a different stock if you want. I got lotsa choices." [Ted is bending down, reaching for something in a bag. Ed is shaking his head wearily.] VOICEOVER: George Bush and the Republican congress spent money earmarked for social security on tax cuts for the wealthiest x% of Americans. Now they say the market will make it right. Maybe it will and maybe it won't. But a deal's a deal. When you get old, get paid what you're owed."

The three-act structure is probably too elaborate. You could cut the first and the third parts and make do with the second, plus final voiceover. It's also oversimple as a metaphor for social security. Obviously. But the kernel is sound. If someone owes you something and they give you something less, they haven't held up their end of the deal. It doesn't matter whether the something less than what you are owed goes up in value so you end up better off. You are owed what you are owed.

I think most of the ways Republicans could complain about all this would start conversations they don't really want to be having, at least not in a reasonable vein. Talking crisis is a loser, since there isn't one. Talking about how social security really doesn't have any money is a loser as well. Suppose you say it's silly to talk about people having made some sort of 'deal' with the government? Correct me if I'm wrong, but this just invites discussion of something it might be hard to Dems to bring up otherwise: there was a kind of 'deal' cut in 1985, or whenever exactly. As Krugman wrote a week ago: "Right now the revenues from the payroll tax exceed the amount paid out in benefits. This is deliberate, the result of a payroll tax increase - recommended by none other than Alan Greenspan - two decades ago. His justification at the time for raising a tax that falls mainly on lower - and middle-income families, even though Ronald Reagan had just cut the taxes that fall mainly on the very well-off, was that the extra revenue was needed to build up a trust fund." Taking that revenue now to pay for making more tax cuts on the wealthy can be presented as breaking a two-decade old deal between the rich and the rest.

The point isn't for the ads to turn out to be the final word about finance, after all, just to get the Republican talking in embarrassing ways. What do you think? "I want my two dollars." Like in Better Off Dead. Another 1985 tale of financial deals broken.

Comments

[Adam Kotsko]

Why should the Democrats oppose Bush's Social Security reform at all? Why not just work closely with congressional Republicans to make sure that the highest-quality possible plan -- complete with certain minimum guarantees and an effective means to harness the power of the market -- gets implemented? If it's just a matter of worrying that the Republicans will do a shoddy job of reforming Social Security, rather than worrying about "reforming Social Security" as such -- if, in fact, the basic outlines of Bush's Social Security reform sound about right -- then why attempt to mobilize public opinion at all? If the concern is with making sure the American people get the great service they've come to expect, why make these futile attempts to differentiate sharply between the two parties when it's really just a matter of nuance?

Here's my idea for a commercial:

"Husband [Republican] starts to make breakfast for the family. Housewife [Democrat] approves of the menu, but scolds him for doing everything wrong -- 'You'll burn the eggs, you'll overcook the oatmeal,' etc. Cue voiceover: Republicans want to reform social spending. While their basic plan is sound, we Democrats feel that we could do a noticably better job with the deetails of implementing that plan. Please consider voting for Democrats next election. Thank you."

[jholbo]

Hi, Adam, I guess I'm tentatively inclined to believe Josh Marshall - see yesterday - about the need for Dem solidarity against Reps. That seems like sound stategy. As to your ad, there are notorious rhetorical downsides to saying that Republicans are like men, Democrats are like women. Also, there's a problem trying to square 'their basic plan is sound' with 'you'll burn the eggs'. Also, there is too much modesty in 'please consider voting Democrat'. (If Democrats aren't now already at the stage where people at least CONSIDER voting for them, they are deep in the hole.) That may be so - though I doubt it. But even if it were, you wouldn't want to pay your own money to tell the public that's the case.

[Adam Kotsko]

Yeah, I guess the Democrats probably shouldn't run a commercial like that. Back to the drawing board!

[Adam Kotsko]

In retrospect, I don't think I should be allowed to discuss Social Security reform after eight solid hours of Walter Benjamin.

I fully endorse Josh Marshall's post, which I only just now read.

[baa]

It all depends on the definition of "crisis." I confess a certain frustration seeing social security reform presented as a trojan horse scheme hatched by the ill-meaning. No doubt many ill-meaning folk on the right who view it in this way (see also: left wingers and civil rights law, right wingers and vouchers, and so on to infinity). But this is not a phony issue.

[baa]

On the non-phoniness point, just as a for instance

[William S]

I still think it's better to focus on the riskiness, becasue the government as a shifty, uncertain, unreliable guy is not convincing. And also because it is the risk that's the real problem. [Like the armour probelm and Rumsfeld. Sure, anything can be be bnlown up so armour is not really an essential issue, but one can go home whole or one can go home lame, and though both lame and whole are better than dead, surely whole is better than lame, and surely the chances of going home whole increase the more armour you have, since the likleihood of emenemies using the sort of munition that could blow up ANYTHING is low.] Lots of people instinctively take the government seriously. Maybe you could have a commercial where businesman were talking about the old days, when a deal was sealed by a handsake, and how rapacious and cunning it is now, where no deal is trusted unless supported by mountains of paper and maybe some political connections, and being forced to rely on such people to manage the money for your retirement when you yourslef don't have access to mountaisn of paper and political connections is not a welcome prospect. They admit themselves that their world is rapacious and nasty! This way you get around the discusion of which is more effecient, the governement or private sector (since everyine will be working through this private sector structure, not magically plugging themselves directly into the stockmarket) and also avoid discussion of whether or not government actually "makes deals" which I think is maybe effective rhetorically but ties too much into seeing the government as primarily a provision of services type entity, which it is, but with respect to individual wants and expectations as opposed to public goods. This then turns one back toward compaing which one, governemtn or a private entity, is better at provsision of various services for you the consumer of. But, you know, I am relatively new to this. Ask me about the Zhong Yong or something.

[jholbo]

I agree that it depends how you define 'crisis', baa. I'll just say that 'crisis is as crisis does', which is totally meaningless - throw Bandarlog in the blogroll where it should have been months ago - and go drink a beer. Cheers, all.

[baa]

Directly beneath Andrew Sullivan. You know that's every neo-con's dream position.

[jholbo]

If you're happy, I'm happy.