The Looming Democratic Party Civil War

Iraq is not the only place that is threatening to dissolve into the anarchy and bloodletting of a civil war.

It's about to happen to the Democratic Party.

Reacting to Bush's planned "surge" in troop strength, the Democratic leaders in Congress, savoring their victory, are contemplating taking only symbolic steps to protest Bush's war policies, a timidity that will highly displease their leftist boosters.

The liberal activists who funded and impelled the Democratic victory in 2006 did not focus on winning a congressional majority so that it would take merely symbolic action. Symbolic action would have been appropriate for a minority party, but the backers of a party in the majority expect something more.

So the Democrats are about to form their customary firing squad — a circular one — and begin again the battles that ripped their party apart in the late 1960s. The battle lines are the same: The new left vs. the party establishment. Speaker Pelosi and Majority Leader Reid are about to squander their credibility with their supporters on the left by failing to cut back, or cut off entirely, funding for the war.

The Democratic Party's left wing is not to be trifled with.

It is a massive force, fully mobilized, and led by aggressive online organizations such as Moveon.org. It has plenty of political leaders — like Ted Kennedy and John Kerry — who are more than willing to articulate fundamental differences with the party's congressional leadership and are not shy about doing so.

The congressional leaders' plan is to give Bush all the rope he needs to hang himself by increasing troop strength in Iraq. They are deeply skeptical about whether more soldiers will accomplish anything besides increasing casualties. But they are not about to take the rap in front of the American people for seeming to sell out our troops by cutting their funding and forcing the administration to retreat. Nor are they ready for a constitutional confrontation with the commander in chief over his wartime powers.

So, instead, they are going to hold hearings during which a parade of former generals will voice their misgivings and air their disagreements, past and present. It will be like one of Bob Woodward's books enacted on a congressional stage. But this theater is not going to appease the left.

They did not elect Democrats to Congress so they could hold hearings.

They expect laws not shows. Their frustration will become increasingly apparent as the Cindy Sheehans of the world react to the increased troop commitment in Baghdad.

The left will launch campaigns of civil disobedience, public marches and protests, online petitions, and the like.

It will be the 1960s all over again.

As long as the Democratic Party could be counted upon to represent the left on Iraq, protests against the war were channeled through the political process and were aimed at electing a Democratic Congress. But now that the Democratic leadership has, in the eyes of the leaders of the left, "betrayed" them, look for protest to overflow the bounds of partisan politics and go into the streets.

One can expect candidates in the Democratic primaries to run to the left seeking to capitalize on the frustration of peace activists at the passivity of the party's congressional leaders in the face of Bush's determination to add to troop strength committed to Iraq.

Moderate candidates like Barack Obama, John Edwards, and even Hillary Clinton may find themselves outflanked by those more willing to run to the left like Al Gore and John Kerry.

Until now, we have had a two-party system in our post 9/11 debates.

Now a new entrant is in the field: the new left. 

O’Reilly-NBC War Heats Up

The war of words between Bill O’Reilly and NBC is getting nastier.

Bill O’Reilly has now charged that "NBC News has gone sharply to the left.”

The Fox News host recently told his radio audience: "They are an activist network now. They hate Bush across the board.” And O’Reilly told NBC’s Andrea Mitchell during an early January interview: "I’ll admit it. I don’t like you guys.”

MSNBC’s Joe Scarborough responded on his show: "Why does Bill O’Reilly hate NBC so much?”

Scarborough, a conservative former Republican congressman, also said, "I certainly took offense when he said there were no conservatives at the network; we were all liberal stooges and Marxist sympathizers.”

He added in an interview that O’Reilly "really does toe the party line more than I ever have.”

Howard Kurtz of The Washington Post, writing about the ongoing feud, observed: "Beyond the name calling . . . is a serious debate about the Iraq war and the nature of media bias. But the cantankerous talking heads are also showmen who know that a bench-clearing brawl can be good for ratings.”

He called the O’Reilly-NBC feud "mean-spirited and incredibly entertaining.”

According to Scarborough, O’Reilly’s animosity toward NBC is largely fueled by his dislike of MSNBC’s Keith Olbermann, who faces off with the "O’Reilly Factor” at 8 p.m. and has been gaining in the ratings.

Olbermann’s show "Countdown” was up 60 percent in the fourth quarter compared to a year earlier, although with 656,000 viewers, it still lags well behind O’Reilly’s show, with 2.04 million viewers.

Olbermann has often bestowed his "Worst Person in the World” award on O’Reilly.

"Several times over the last year, according to three sources who asked not to be identified . . . O’Reilly’s agent called Jeff Zucker, chief executive of NBC’s television group, urging him to tell his MSNBC commentators to back off,” Kurtz disclosed.

Olbermann said in an interview that O’Reilly latest assault on NBC "reeks a little bit of an attempt to get some attention.”

O’Reilly for his part refuses to mention Olbermann by name. But he did say that "an NBC commentator” had stated that "President Bush is allowing Americans to be killed in Iraq for money and other insane stuff. Unbelievable.” 

Hillary Answers 'Attack' by John Edwards

Sen. Hillary Clinton has launched her first direct attack on a potential Democratic presidential rival, ripping John Edwards for criticizing her stance on the Iraq war.

Hillary’s jab at Edwards came after the former senator and 2004 vice presidential candidate spoke in New York on Sunday.

Although he didn’t mention Clinton by name, his reference was clear when he condemned those who fail to "speak out” against the war, the New York Post reported.

"Silence is betrayal, and I believe it is a betrayal not to speak out against the escalation of the war in Iraq," Edwards told a crowd at Manhattan's Riverside Church.

"If you're in Congress and you know that this war is going in the wrong direction . . . it is no longer O.K. to study your options and keep your own private counsel.

"Silence is betrayal. Speak out and stop this escalation now."

Clinton responded through her adviser Howard Wolfson: "In 2004, John Edwards used to constantly brag about running a positive campaign. Today, he has unfortunately chosen to open his campaign with political attacks on Democrats who are fighting the Bush administration's Iraq policy.”

Edwards has recanted his 2002 vote for the resolution authorizing the Iraq war. Clinton also voted for the resolution, and while she has been critical of the Bush administration's handling of the war, she has disappointed the anti-war left by failing to denounce the war itself.

Clinton's quick response to Edwards indicates that her team considers him a "top-tier threat,” according to the Post.

"Clinton now faces a double-barreled threat from two charismatic contenders, Edwards and Sen. Barack Obama.” 

Nancy Pelosi’s Daughter Takes Christians’ Side

Nancy Pelosi’s daughter, Alexandra, has been busy making political documentaries, which include “Journeys With George,” a profile of George W. Bush, and “Diary of a Political Tourist,” a film that, according to the HBO Web site, takes “a road trip with the [2004 presidential] Democratic hopefuls.”

The latest endeavor of the speaker of the House’s daughter is a made-for-cable film called “Friends of God: A Road Trip With Alexandra Pelosi.”

The movie examines conservative evangelical Christians including some prominent pastors like Jerry Falwell and Joel Osteen.

The primary Christian personality in Pelosi’s movie is former president of the National Association of Evangelicals Rev. Ted Haggard, who, after Alexandra had completed production, was accused of buying drugs from a male prostitute and forced to step down.

Featured in the movie are a drive-through church, a Christian wrestling federation, a Christian stand-up comedian and an evangelical Elvis, among other spiritual marvels.

Alexandra is wary about involving Mama Speaker in the movie biz. She told The New York Times, “The last thing I need is her [Nancy] editing my film.”

“She’ll be subtle, the same way she comes to my house and says I need to drop one of the baby’s feedings. You don’t get to be speaker of the House by being subtle.”

Despite the film’s spotlight on some religious peculiarities, Alexandra had some uncharacteristically kind words for the Bible-believing subjects of her film.

“I believe in the culture war,” she explained. “And you know what? If I have to take a side in the culture war I’ll take their [Christian conservatives] side. Because if you give me the choice of Paris Hilton or Jesus, I’ll take Jesus.”

U.S.-Mexico Pact Revealed: Billions to Non-citizens

 As a result of lawsuits, the U.S. government released this week the actual U.S.-Mexico Social Security Totalization Agreement, an understanding signed between the Bush administration and the Mexican government in 2004 that would funnel billions of U.S. Social Security funds to Mexican citizens.

TREA Senior Citizens League, a Washington-based nonpartisan seniors group, announced this week that after Freedom of Information Act lawsuits it filed against the government, it had received the secret agreement document.

Brad Phillips, a spokesperson for TREA, told NewsMax that the language in the agreement "raises more questions than it answers — such as what is the cost and who is going to pay."

The Government Accountability Office (GAO) has already warned that as a result of this agreement, the number of unauthorized Mexican workers and family members eligible for social security benefits will likely increase.

The Dreaded Loophole

TREA and other watchdog groups were hopeful that the agreement would directly address, and perhaps even moot, the hot-button issue of illegal immigrants at some point claiming U.S. Social Security benefits.

"A law called the Social Security Protection Act of 2004 forbids illegal immigrants from claiming Social Security benefits — but a loophole exists," Phillips explained.

"If an immigrant gains what's called a valid ‘work-authorized' Social Security number at some point, then he or she could eventually file a claim for benefits. The government would use all earnings to calculate the retirement benefit — even earnings while working illegally," Phillips added.

The U.S. commissioner of Social Security signed the agreement with the director general of the Mexican Social Security Institute on June 29, 2004. TREA has fought to make it public for over three and a half years, according to a press release from the organization.

In the meantime, the agreement has been slowly making its way through mandated reviews by the State Department and the White House. Once the White House submits it to Congress, lawmakers will have 60 legislative days to review it.

Either chamber may vote to pass a Resolution of Disapproval of the agreement — or it will take effect automatically at the end of the 60-day period. Furthermore, the Mexican Senate must affirmatively approve the totalization agreement.

In general, Totalization Agreements are between the United States and other countries to coordinate their respective social security programs. For instance, such agreements typically work to eliminate the need to pay social security taxes in both countries — when companies in one country send workers to the other country. Also they are crafted to protect benefit eligibility for workers who split their working careers between the two countries.

According to TREA, if an illegal worker working in the United States today gets a "work authorized" Social Security number — through guest-worker immigration legislation, the Totalization Agreement, or perhaps just over time — that worker could eventually apply for Social Security benefits once the worker has met eligibility requirements.

Unfair Advantage

For example, say TREA officials, a worker who turns 62 after 1990 generally needs 40 calendar quarters of coverage to receive retirement benefits. Under Totalization Agreements, workers are allowed to combine earnings from both countries in order to qualify for benefits.

The agreement with Mexico, like other Totalization Agreements, would allow workers to qualify with just six quarters, or 18 months, of U.S. coverage.

In addition, advised TREA, that worker could be able to claim credits for work performed while in the United States illegally. The SSA maintains an "earnings suspense file," which tracks wages that cannot be posted to individual workers' records because there is no match for a name and Social Security number.

Once an immigrant gains access to a work authorized Social Security number — whether a legal citizen or not — wages earned while in the United States unlawfully could be reinstated to the worker's new Social Security account, warned TREA officers.

Such writing-on-the-wall concerns are not just being sounded by TREA, however.

Warnings by the GAO

In a recent special report to Congress, the GAO voiced a number of issues latent in the agreement:

SSA has no written policies or procedures it follows when entering into Totalization Agreements, and the actions it took to assess the integrity and compatibility of Mexico's social security system were limited and neither transparent nor well-documented.

SSA provided no information showing that it assessed the reliability of Mexican earnings data and the internal controls used to ensure the integrity of information that SSA will rely on to pay Social Security benefits.

The proposed agreement will likely increase the number of unauthorized Mexican workers and family members eligible for Social Security benefits. Mexican workers who ordinarily could not receive Social Security retirement benefits because they lack the required 40 coverage credits for U.S. earnings could qualify for partial Social Security benefits with as few as six coverage credits.

Under the proposed agreement, more family members of covered Mexican workers would become newly entitled because the agreements usually waive rules that prevent payments to non-citizens' dependents and survivors living outside the United States.

The cost of such an agreement is highly uncertain. In March 2003, the Office of the Chief Actuary estimated that the cost of the Mexican agreement would be $78 million in the first year and would grow to $650 million (in constant 2002 dollars) in 2050. The actuarial cost estimate assumes the initial number of newly eligible Mexican beneficiaries is equivalent to the 50,000 beneficiaries living in Mexico today and would grow six-fold over time.

This previous proxy figure does not directly consider the estimated millions of current and former unauthorized workers and family members from Mexico and appears small in comparison with those estimates. The estimate also inherently assumes that the behavior of Mexican citizens would not change and does not recognize that an agreement would create an additional incentive for unauthorized workers to enter the United States to work and maintain documentation to claim their earnings under a false identity.

An analysis performed at the GAO's request shows that a measurable impact would occur with an increase of more than 25 percent in the estimate of initial, new beneficiaries. For prior agreements, error rates associated with estimating the expected number of new beneficiaries have frequently exceeded 25 percent, even in cases where uncertainties about the number of unauthorized workers were less prevalent.

Because of the significant number of unauthorized Mexican workers in the United States, the estimated cost of the proposed Totalization Agreement is even more uncertain than in prior agreements.

Playing by the Rules

"The Social Security Administration itself warns that Social Security is within decades of bankruptcy — yet, they seem to have no problem making agreements that hasten its demise," said Ralph McCutchen, chairman of TREA.

"Our 1.2 million elderly members didn't play by the rules and sacrifice through difficult times so we could fund millions of workers who crossed the border and decided to work here illegally," McCutchen added.

TREA officers also warn that Mexico's retirement system is radically different than that of other participating countries.

For example, only 40 percent of non-government workers participate in Mexico's system, whereas 96 percent of America's non-government workers do. In addition, the U.S. system is progressive, meaning lower wage earners get back much more than they put in; in Mexico, workers get back only what they put in, plus accrued interest.

Uncovering the Ugly Truth

"I applaud the persistent efforts of TREA Senior Citizens League to try to get documents from the U.S. government about the U.S.-Mexico Social Security Totalization Agreement," said Rep. Walter Jones, R-N.C. "The American people are finally beginning to get some of the information regarding this Agreement that they have been seeking for so long."

According to the Social Security Administration, the Social Security Trust Fund will begin paying out more than it is taking in by 2017, and will be exhausted by the year 2040.

Phillips noted that [before the emergence of the agreement] "the Administration always called it ludicrous to suggest that illegal immigrants could get their hands on our Social Security."

"We not hearing that anymore," Phillips lamented.