The Sanford Project

In one word: no. In two words: hell no.

I'll apologize in advance if my tone on this subject sounds a little defensive. I'm very proud of the performance of the Dems on Social Security, as it has been the one instance where they have (so far) shown some backbone and effectively acted as an opposition party to the benefit of Americans. So I am very proud of the Democrats' record on this issue (so far).

One theme you'll see me repeat here is that compromise with the Bush administration is a sucker's bet. Let's take a look back at the major Bush initiatives:

• The Bush tax cuts - Dems were willing to agree, so long as they were allowed insert sunset provisions - worthless measures that the fiscally-insane portion of the Republican party has no intention to honor. They also fought to make the cuts marginally more progressive than Bush originally proposed.


• Iraq - Dems agreed to support the Iraq War so long as Bush promised to go to the UN and only pursue war as a last option (a promise laid bare by the Downing Street Memos).


• Medicare - What concessions did the Dems win in passing this monstrosity? Some of their major campaign contributors reaped pay-days, as well? Thanks for nothing, Democrats.


• The Nuclear Option Compromise - Great! Dems can still use the filibuster, so long as the Bush nominee is clearly worse than Brown, Owen, and Pryor. And the population of potential judges worse than those three is how big? Let's just say that the number is about equal to the number of times Bill Frist has correctly diagnosed a patient from the floor of the Senate.

Clearly, compromise has left the public worse off in each of those cases than if the Dems had been successful in blocking the Bush initiative all together.

The fight for Social Security is another one of these cases. The Republican "fix" to SS's solvency is worse than if no changes are made at all (If readers would like me to get into specifics on the numbers, please let me know via comments. But the short story is that Bush's proposal hastened the date of insolvency, cost a ton, and resulted in lower benefits...the ultimate lose-lose-lose situation). The fact that the Democrats have defeated Bush's proposals leaves the party better off (unity and backbone...what great concepts!), and, more importantly, has left the country better off.

Which brings me to a secondary point regarding just how the Democrats achieved victory (so far). My esteemed blogging buddy, Eirishis, insinuates that the Democrats achieved victory by "scaring" the American public. Really? Who was it that offered the following frightful tales:

• "...the system is headed towards bankruptcy down the road. If we do not act soon, Social Security will not be there for our children and grandchildren."


• "So if you're 20 years old, in your mid-20s, and you're beginning to work, I want you to think about a Social Security system that will be flat bust, bankrupt, unless the United States Congress has got the willingness to act now."


• "Most younger people in America think they'll never see a dime. Probably an exaggeration to a certain extent [do you think he has any clue what the terms "probably" and "to a certain extent" mean?]. But a lot of people who are young, who understand how Social Security works, really do wonder whether they'll see anything."


• "But if this Congress doesn't join this administration in working to reform and strengthen Social Security, we will not be able to look at the high school seniors of today and say we have done our duty in protecting Social Security for you; for after all, the system will be bankrupt by the year 2040."


• "If nothing happens, at your age, [Social Security] will be bust by the time it comes time for you to retire...if nothing happens and we don't start moving on it now, by the time Josh gets to retirement age, the system will be flat broke."


• "In other words, you've been working all your life. You're putting money in, and by the time it comes for you to get ready to retire, there's nothing there."


• "As a matter of fact [ha!], by the time today's workers who are in their mid-20s begin to retire, the system will be bankrupt."


• "Some youngster told me about the survey that said many young people are?think it's more likely they're going to see a UFO than get a Social Security check."

Gee, I wonder where they got that idea!

I could go on, but I think you get the point. You know who was peddling these spooky tales. I'll give you a hint, it was your tax dollars financing his trip to go around the country and lie in the faces of Americans. And he wasn't a Democrat.

Does the solvency of the program still need to be addressed? Yes. But the solution is no great mystery. A small combination of tax increases and benefit cuts (likely via raising the retirement age) can put the system in the black for decades to come. But it's no priority now, as it's in better financial shape than nearly any other government program. The immediate concern should be Medicare, and reigning in our fiscal budgets.

By the way, the fight isn't over. Jim DeMint, Rick Santorum, and Lindsey Graham want to use the Social Security withholding tax revenue surpluses currently accumulating in the trust fund, and redirect them to pay for funding private accounts. Steve Soto at TPM Cafe explains why this is a bad idea.