I am not a Republican, nor am I a Democrat. But in the Social Security debate that can be something of an asset. Social Security reform has strong backing only among Republicans. Democrats hate it and Independents aren’t sold. To understand the true extent of the problem, advocates of reform (and sadly, they are almost exclusively Republicans at this point) need to step out of their self-affirming echo chambers and recognize that they are losing.
When I suggested a few weeks ago that the battle for reform had been temporarily lost, many on this site objected. Now Stephen Moore of the Weekly Standard agrees, stating: “The White House and Republican political strategists probably deluded themselves into believing that the stars were finally aligned to whip personal accounts through Congress this year. That calculus now appears to have been wrong.” This weekend David Brooks advanced the theory that it is the inherent conservatism of Americans that is restraining support for Social Security reform. According to Republican pollster Bill McInturf: "opinions are hardening in a way that makes Bush's job more difficult". This isn’t reckless pessimism, but clear-headed analysis by people more interested in seeing change than making noise.
Optimism without cause can be just as harmful as defeatism, and is often harder to identify. It is time for those who look forward to substantive reform to recognize that the initial message has failed. People believe there is a problem, but haven’t heard a solution they are willing to support. As Stephen Moore aptly puts it: “In politics as in poker: Stop drawing cards and tossing in chips on a losing hand.”
Replies: 1 Comment
Posted by:
Nathan Smith
On Tuesday, April 12th
Well, I'll admit that there's a problem. I just don't think that the problem shows up in the polls as a lack of public support. You continue to get pluralities or majorities in favor of the idea of investing payroll taxes in the stock market.
The way I'd diagnose the problem is that partial privatization of Social Security should really be accompanied by a tax hike of some kind. We should also cut the growth rate of benefits, but we have a big deficit RIGHT NOW, and if we're going to start creating private accounts we should raise some of the revenue for it right now. Republicans forfeited the Bush tax cut when they passed the prescription drug benefit and other spending initiatives. If the Republicans had controlled spending, the Bush tax cut would look clever. Now it's embarrassing.
My guess is that the political momentum would change if Republicans embraced Lindsay Graham's proposal to finance private accounts by raising the cap (even a little bit). Americans want fiscal responsibility, and in the long run, the lockbox feature inherent in private accounts is the only way to get it. Graham's proposal makes this clearer. If Bush could muster the Republican Congress behind this bill, Democrats would find the momentum hard to resist.
