This Again?

According to the Washington Post's editorial board, the Democrats need to work with Bush to "reform" Social Security. Having been down this road before in 2005, the question that has to be asked is, why?

In answer, the board put forward the following: 1) Bush and his cohorts are now pragmatic and flexible, making a bipartisan deal possible. 2) While Social Security is projected to be fully solvent with no changes for the next 40 years, the system needs to be able to make guarantees for a much longer period of time to reassure younger workers. 3) Even though the Social Security problem "pales next to the budget challenge Medicare presents", we should deal with Social Security first because it's easier.

The evidence of Bush's new-found willingness to deal is a little shaky. In the end, it boils down to the claim that the Treasury Secretary isn't an ideologue, and that the openly pro-privitization member of the Social Security Administration that Bush just appointed can have civil discussions with liberal academics. But has Bush changed the tenor of his approach and become more conciliatory and bipartisan? That we're not told, although the stick-in-you-eye appointment should leave Democrats a bit cold. And let's face it, the President has an absolutely abysmal record of working constructively with the opposition. The new Treasury Secretary might well be a good guy, but we all know he's not driving this train, Bush is.

Now, about that dismal 40-year solvency thing. What longer projections actually show is a very modest shortfall that can easily be covered through very modest tax changes over the course of several decades. That's the kind of reassurance I think most people would find heartening, if only the administration were willing to finally admit that Social Security is not a fatally flawed program that will end in disaster. In terms of predictability and stability, the best course for the Democrats is not to change a thing for now.

The last claim, that we should tackle Social Security first because it's the easier task, really argues for the opposite approach. If the problem isn't all that serious now, why do anything rash? In contrast, we know that Medicare, and the health care system in general, is in way worse shape, and the crunch will come a whole lot sooner. It's true, Bush probably doesn't have a plan to fix Medicare, but he hasn't really offered up anything concrete on the Social Security front either. Meanwhile, the Democrats, contra the Post, have lots of nifty health-care plans. If those plans are DOA because of Bush, that's hardly reason to blame the Democrats.

Besides the fact that it really doesn't advance a coherent argument, there is much else wrong with this editorial. For example, blaming eventual Social Security shortfalls on "retirement of the baby boomers plus rising life expectancy," as if these somehow haven't been factored into the equation. (And let's remember that some SSA projections with better historical track records than the one most often quoted show the program fully-funded through the next 75 years at least.)

So, for those who have forgotten 2005, here's the recap: there is no Social Security crisis. In fact, there isn't a problem that requires us to make significant changes to the system now. But if the Democrats engage with a President who has been reluctant to put out a plan of his own, they implicitly acknowledge the crisis rhetoric that the Bush administration has been peddling, and thus implicitly acknowledge a need to act when there isn't one. It's the same gambit today.

If Bush has a plan, let's hear it — everyone is willing to listen. And as for the Post, the modest proposal they float at the end of this piece seems to revolve around some kind of private account that doesn't involve touching the payroll tax, a "plan" without details, and no evidence that it would solve the completely non-pressing problem they point to with such alarm. Meanwhile, Democrats already have plenty of ideas about how to improve the 401(k) program, but that's not even acknowledged by the Post, I presume, because those plans don't start from the premise that Social Security is broken. The Post could get on board and promote some real retirement security solutions, but instead they just want to beat up the Democrats a little bit. No wonder the Democrats don't trust the "reform-minded" crowd.