| CURRENT WEATHER: Clear, 47° |
|
|
|
||
|
||||
|
April 29, 2005
If it's not broken yet, why fix it now?By JOHN BRUMMETT Well, now. That's pretty much the issue, isn't it? Do Democrats bear any responsibility to Social Security other than to stop President Bush from risking its ruination and piling debt upon debt with his silly partial privatization plan? Isn't saving Social Security from the president's nonsense a pretty good thing for the time being, since Social Security actually will be all right as is for another 40 years or so? Isn't there plenty of time between now and then to do something for Social Security without obliging Bush's rhetoric and timetable? And if Democrats engage reasonable Republicans like Grassley today on some kind of compromise whereby changes are made in eligibility, benefits or payroll deductions, will they be taking Bush off the hook for his right-wing pandering and ceding their political advantage on Social Security for the midterm elections? Will they be snookered again? Finally, to put politics aside, do the Democrats have some higher responsibility to statesmanship, to using this window of opportunity that Bush's bully pulpit has opened to get something done actuarially that will keep Social Security in a condition to pay full benefits well past doomsday somewhere around the middle of the century? So many questions, so little space. And before we answer them, we should get one thing clear: Chief among those spouting off about Social Security without offering a plan is George W. Bush. His "plan" has been simplistic rhetoric about people keeping their own money, spouted ad nauseam at choreographed "town hall meetings." He doesn't have a bill. He doesn't even have a written outline, so far as we know. And another thing: All the preceding assumes the president can't pass partial privatization, a fairly safe assumption. Now, for answers: So long as Republicans insist on any plan including as a component a provision by which persons are allowed to take part of their current Social Security deductions and convert them to private accounts, requiring hundreds of millions in new borrowing for Social Security's transitional costs by a federal government already on a road marked bankruptcy, then the Democrats should simply obstruct and pat themselves on the back for doing so. They should hang the president out to dry, a richly deserved fate. But let's say some Republican - Grassley, for example, who managed a touch of bipartisanship on the Medicare prescription drug benefit - proposes a plan by which eligibility, benefits and payroll deductions are changed to make Social Security solvent for a much longer term. Let's say partial privatization is not part of the plan. And let's say he includes a purely voluntary add-on provision by which people could devote additional payroll deductions to private Social Security accounts, thus controlling that money themselves and potentially providing long-range relief for the basic Social Security system. Understanding that those are big ifs, especially considering that Bush has so far rejected add-on personal accounts, what should the Democrats do then? Should they embrace good government at the expense of good politics? That's a tough one. But since any reform in Social Security will require that somebody do that sometime over the next 40 years, and considering that Democrats have been losing ground by playing politics anyway, I'd suggest they do the novel thing. By that I mean the right thing. Brummett is an award-winning columnist for the Arkansas News Bureau in Little Rock and author of "High Wire," a book about Bill Clinton's first year as president. His e-mail address is jbrummett@arkansasnews.com. |
