A couple of months ago, Americans seemed so decidedly against George W. Bush's proposal to include private accounts in a reformed Social Security system that the president decided to go on the road to drum up a little support for the idea. His chances seemed dim then, and they look even dimmer now.
But right around the start of the tour I interviewed Bill Thomas, the chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, about the prospects of rewriting the Social Security laws. Thomas is one of the great interviews on Capitol Hill. He doesn't so much answer question as deliver lectures, in the fashion of the college professor he once was. He explores theories, paints scenarios, debunks myths, and savages Democrats. He is, by reputation, a short-tempered man of considerable verbal dexterity, the combination of which can have the effect, if you cross him sufficiently, of cutting you off at the knees and beheading you at the same time.
“People are afraid of him,” one senior GOP staffer said. And if he has mellowed some over the years, Thomas has often acknowledged that he is not a warm and fuzzy guy. “I don't suffer fools gladly,” he has admitted.
Nothing unpleasant occurred in this particular interview, but I was struck by how unfazed Thomas was by the debacle that Social Security had become for the Republicans at the time. Then as now, the poll numbers were in the dumps; Democrats were unified, organized, and vocal in their opposition; and the Republican Party was divided and uneasy about the political consequences of the debate and any action that would follow.
Thomas was promising not just a full debate on the president's proposal but a much grander overhaul of the way the government, funds, subsidizes, or incentivizes (Ways and Means is the tax-writing committee) the way Americans pay for their old age. “Our approach,” Thomas said recently, “will be to examine the changing population, the aging population, and offer a program that addresses all aspects that need to be addressed under the federal government's jurisdiction -- within the Ways and Means Committee's jurisdiction -- that deal with retirement.”
Not only did it sound more complicated than the president's plan, it seemed unlikely that it could be translated into a legislative vehicle that could get Congress' approval. Yet Thomas was practically promising victory. It had the feel of the coach who guarantees victory at halftime, when his team is way behind. Thomas, who was elected to Congress in 1978, likes to point out that he is the only current member who served on the Ways and Means Committee's Social Security subcommittee in 1983, the last time significant reforms were instituted.
“We will approach the president's goals just as we did in 1983. We were a minority then and we weren't able to prevail. We are a majority today and we will prevail,” he said last week, adding: “I'm going to be stressing to the subcommittee chairman and to the members of my committee about the fact that I was there in 1983, and that we are not going to do what the majority did then. Republicans were able to push a string, which is very hard to do, in producing changes in Social Security. We are the ones who are pulling the string this time around.”
Which pretty much ensures that Democrats will not have a say in what eventually comes out of the committee. That is not new. Thomas and the ranking Democrat, Charles Rangel, have a complicated relationship: They seem to have some grudging respect for each other, but they agree on nothing.
I asked Thomas how, in the current climate, he could he be so optimistic? And in his response is a looming caution for Democrats. Last week, after the president laid out his “progressive indexing” plan in answer to the Social Security solvency issue, Thomas promised to hold a series of Social Security hearings this month -- at least one a week, starting next week -- in which he will write a reform bill. He promises to have legislation ready by June.
While skepticism remains about how much support there is for any of the particular elements of an overhaul, Thomas understands that having a piece of legislation and requiring a yes or no vote, rather than an amorphous proposal, is likely to change the parameters of the debate, which could be a dangerous development for Democrats who have focused all their fire on the Bush's private retirement accounts.
Asked how he was going to produce a successful bill if it forces GOP members to vote for benefit cuts, as called for in the president's plan, Thomas delivered a little lecture, painted a scenario, explored some theories: “I think I've said -- and I will repeat it -- that it won't just be a Social Security bill. It will be a retirement bill. And that members will look at the total package. And that one of the ways you're able to make law, let alone pass the House, is to provide a package in which people see something that they can support. And if you're looking for 100-percent support, that's rare.”
What he's looking for is one more vote than the other side, and on that front he has some history. As Ways and Means Committee chair, Thomas has successfully crafted some of the most contentious legislation to pass the Congress -- and by some of the narrowest margins -- in recent years. Four years ago, he led the fight for a trade-promotion bill giving President Bush negotiating authority not reviewable by the Congress. It passed by one vote, 215 to 214. In 2003, it was Thomas again leading the fight to reform Medicare and add a prescription-drug benefit. That led to the now-famous 2-hour-and-51-minute vote than began at 3 a.m. It was supposed to be a 15-minute vote, and for more than an hour, the plan appeared dead, with the scoreboard reading 218 to 216 against. But the GOP leadership kept the vote open, twisting arms and getting the president to make early-morning phone calls to flip a few GOP members from no to yes. In the end the GOP prevailed, 220 to 215. Sixteen Democrats defected and voted for that bill.
That won't happen again, Democrats say. They insist that the disarray that has characterized the GOP effort on Social Security so far will continue even when there is an actual bill, and they say that they are eager to have Republicans go on record with a proposal that reduces benefits. Still, they know they have to watch out for Bill Thomas.
“We don't have anybody like him on our side,” said one Democratic House aide, and he wasn't saying it proudly.
Terence Samuel is the chief congressional correspondent for U.S. News & World Report. His column about politics appears each week in the Prospect's online edition.
