Holding Fire (the Social Security debate)

The Washington Post says that now that George has announced his latest how-to-kill Social Security plan, the Dems are challenged to come up with an alternative. No they aren't.

Now, the Post is a political newspaper and loves a good fight to keep the circulation up. I can respect that. But the Dems would be silly to fret about coming up with their own plan now.

The Social Security "crisis", of course, is of Bush's own making, for obvious political reasons. It's an attempt to shear off senior voters who are tempted to vote Dem as long as they feel they need the Dems to keep the public pension check coming. As the boomer generation ages, this could turn into a demographic landslide against the GOP. So I understand why George is proposing the silliness he's proposing.

The simple response to Social Security is relatively modest adjustments in payroll deductions and benefits to keep it in line. This can be done over time, phased as the years go by. You don't need all this "private/personal account" nonsense. People already have that through 401(k)'s and such. Social Security needs to be the rock-solid guaranteed benefit underpinning the necessary risk of our own private accounts. But if the Dems bring this up now, the GOP will howl "raising taxes!" and divert attention from their own foolhardiness.

So the Dems should lay low, and say nothing. Let Bush and company hang themselves before the mid-term elections. If pressed, enlarge the question and evade. Say, "we need to look at all of the issue in retirement, such as people retiring later because they're in better health, or working part-time instead of full retirement." Then offer to hold hearings or set up a commission. This way the Dems look visionary without having to craft an unnecessary and politically risky response to Bush's pointless proposal.

I like the Washington Post. But sometimes they do get it wrong.

Update:

Following is a link to a 7 page pdf which is the most intelligentpiece on Social Security I have read. The author is very qualified.

The second link is to a short biography on the author, Robert M.Ball. Mr. Ball began working for Social Security in 1939, by 1942 hewas the chief staff expert on expanding coverage, he then rose throughthe Social Security staff to be Commissioner of Social Security underPresidents Kennedy, Johnson and Nixon. In 1981-1982 Ball was a memberof the Greenspan Commission, which resulted in the 1983 Amendments. Over the years he has written many articles and books.

Ball article on fixing Social Security

http://www.tcf.org/Publications/RetirementSecurity/ballplan.pdf

Mr. Ball's short biography from the Social Security oral history website

http://www.ssa.gov/history/orals/balloralhistory.html