A Step Back

The latest GOP plan to "save" Social Security comes from the Republican House leadership. The idea is to fund small private accounts with the current trust fund surplus. Only problem is, this plan won't do anything to improve the solvency of the system.

Still, Republicans hope the new proposal will shift the debate away from future benefit cuts, as Bush envisions, to ending what they call the "raid" on the current Social Security surplus. But the plan, unlike Bush's, would do nothing to remedy the New Deal-era program's long-term fiscal problems.

An aide to House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) called the bill "a great start," and House Majority Whip Roy Blunt (R-Mo.) called it "an excellent first step." Aides said leadership will gauge reaction over the July 4 break.

OK, not the only problem. What happens when the trust fund surplus runs out in a decade or so? What do you do with all those other federal programs that are currently being funded from the surplus? Yet, despite all these drawbacks, the GOP is still calling this an "excellent first step". OK, then, if the long-term health of the program isn't the goal, what is?

There are two obvious answers to this question. First, it sets up the exit strategy rather nicely. The Republican's don't want the last idea on the table to be Bush's benefit cuts. Instead, they want the voters think about their "free money" plan and how the Democrats wouldn't pass it.

But, if the GOP leadership is actually able to get the votes to pass this bill, it's the foot in the door for privatizing the whole system. When the surplus runs out, it will be mighty hard to end the free money give-away, so the Republicans will push again to fund those private accounts with payroll taxes and benefit cuts.

The Republicans want to put political pressure on the Democrats with this show of "movement", but Democrats should hold the line against negotiating as long as private accounts of any kind are still on the table. This latest proposal isn't a step forward — just the opposite, in fact.