I was impressed that President Bush, in his recent visit to South Carolina, touted Lindsey Graham as a leader in the Social Security debate. Graham brings an important quality to the table in his desire to get things done and his willingness to go against his own party's orthodoxy when advancing ideas (see article here). I wonder if, by calling Graham a leader on the issue, Bush isn't signaling to Congressional Republicans that ideological purity will have to take a back seat to political reality. The point can and has been argued, and I believe it will continue to be argued, but I feel that without overwhelming support for private accounts Congress will not act decisively. Whatever else can be said about our president, he has proven himself to be a gifted politician, and he must know that his party runs a serious risk if, after making the case that Social Security is in crisis, it fails to take action. By expressly putting Graham forward as a leader in the Social Security debate, Bush seems to be taking steps to assure that action is taken.
Replies: 1 Comment
Posted by:
Nathan Smith
On Wednesday, April 20th
This is a good sign, and not just for political reasons. Graham actually has the right idea on this.
Graham wants to raise the cap on Social Security taxes. Well, good. We're not going to get spending cuts any time soon, and deficits are worse than taxes, because they are taxes-- taxes on borrowers, who have to pay higher interest rates because they are competing with the government for savers' dollars. (It's true that interest rates haven't risen, because foreigners have, for their own reasons, moved a huge amount of money into the US in recent years. Without the deficit, though, they would have fallen.)
"Starve the beast" didn't work. While cutting taxes, the Bush administration spent more. Maybe it's time for a new tack: Use tax hikes to spook voters into opposing government spending.
If Republicans come around to saying, "yes, we'll raise taxes, like you Democrats want so badly, but only in return for private accounts," it will become difficult for the Democrats to say no. And if they do, one of two things will happen: either voters will punish them for being a no-ideas party; or else they will opportunistically run for office on a platform of having blocked Graham's tax hikes, and thus change the political landscape.
Either way, it's a step in the right direction.
