I have to admit, I’m torn. Part of me assumes Bush will be successful in gutting Social Security because he’s been successful in pretty much everything else he’s gone after, whether the merits of the idea were ridiculous or not.
But the other part of me continues to marvel at the number of congressional Republicans (not just Linc Chafee, we’re talking real Republicans) who seem awfully skeptical about Bush’s scheme.
Two weeks ago, it was Rep. Tom Davis of Virginia, former chairman of the House Republican campaign committee, who said he knows of about 30 House Republicans, including him, who are already inclined to oppose Bush’s Social Security plan.
This week, it’s Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), one of the chamber’s most enthusiastic supporters of privitization, who believes Bush’s approach is misguided.
A Republican congressional proponent of Social Security reform warned President Bush on Sunday not to rely on a sharp increase in government borrowing to overhaul the federal retirement program.
U.S. Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina said reliance on borrowing to finance an estimated $1 trillion to $2 trillion in transition costs would be irresponsible and could undermine Bush’s tax- and deficit-cutting goals.
“What I’m asking of the president, when it comes to the transition costs, be flexible,” said Graham, who has proposed a temporary rise in payroll tax contributions to finance Social Security’s shift to partial privatization.
“I think it’s irresponsible to borrow the whole trillion dollars,” he told “Fox News Sunday.”
With any luck, Graham will have the courage to oppose a plan that he believes is “irresponsible,” because borrowing the whole trillion (or two) is exactly what Bush has in mind.
“I don’t think you can make the tax cuts permanent, have alternative minimum tax relief and borrow the entire transition costs — which is over a trillion dollars — and have deficits that we can sustain,” the South Carolina Republican said.
What do you know, I agree with something Lindsey Graham said.