Avoiding the GOP tax trap

Guest Post by Morbo

Charles Krauthammer, in a recent column, accused the Democrats of being a party with no ideas. If this were true, I’d argue that no ideas are preferable to what the Republicans have to offer — lousy ideas.

However, the charge isn’t true. Krauthammer is just upset because President George W. Bush’s scheme to privatize Social Security and turn Americans against the centerpiece of FDR’s New Deal has fallen flat on its face. Things have gotten so bad that some Republicans are taking openly about finding an “exit strategy.” Meanwhile, Bush continues to promote the plan before dwindling crowds of hand-picked sycophants, seemingly oblivious to the fact that his mad scheme has gone the way of all flesh.

He recently joined actor/loser Ben Stein to promote the plan in the Democratic stronghold of Montgomery County, Md. Poor move. People there like neither the plan nor Bush. White House toadies had to pack the place with Heritage Foundation and Cato Institute interns. Outside, county residents waved signs and expressed their opposition.

What are Krauthammer and other frustrated members of the right-wing pseudo-intelligentsia to do? The rotting carcass of the Bush plan is stinking up America’s living room, and not one of them is man enough to admit to defeat and haul it out. So they fall back on a typical GOP stunt: scaring people over taxes.

(And by the way, isn’t it amusing seeing Krauthammer accuse the Democrats of having no new ideas? Mind you, this comes from a guy, who from 1993-2000, wrote the same column every week: “I sure hate Bill Clinton.”)

Krauthammer and other members of the right-wing disinformation machine know full well that the Democrats have an answer on Social Security: Keep the system intact. Obviously, at some point, ensuring the continued viability of the system will require tax increases, benefits cuts or some combination thereof.

The right wing can’t win on privatizing Social Security. The American people hate the idea. But the Republicans think they can win on taxes. So, by screaming that the Democrats have no plan, the GOP is trying to lure them into a trap by forcing party leaders to admit that the fix will involve a tax increase.

So far, Democrats have failed to take the bait. I hope they continue to refuse it. The Democrats have been disciplined and on message: The Bush privatization scheme is a reckless experiment that puts Social Security in jeopardy. The system is not broken. It does not need Bush’s radical “fix.” For now, there is no need for the Democrats to say anything else except to add, “We’re the party that will save Social Security.”

The Democrats’ plan for saving it, which I can all the “grown-up option,” can be outlined later. Deep in their hearts, most Americans probably realize that a tax hike will be necessary to shore up Social Security. It need not be a big one, and when the proper time comes that can be explained. Perhaps, in a dramatic shift from recent practices, the increase can be limited only to the obscenely wealthy.

But now is not the time to talk about that. Going down the road now only plays into the GOP’s hands. It shifts the debate away from privatizing Social Security, which the Republicans are losing very badly, to tax increases, which they think they can win.

So when will be the appropriate time to talk about the Democrats’ plan for rescuing Social Security from the privatizers? There’s no hurry. Frankly, I like seeing the Bush plan being treated like a piñata. I love that the more Bush talks about his plan, the less people like it. Heck, I’d miss that kooky old plan if it were gone. No need to rush things. We can start talking about the real fix in, oh, say December of 2006 — or maybe even two years after that.

Social Security has existed in much the same form since its creation 70 years ago.

Can anyone – anyone – name a Republican program of similar length, durability, and success?

  • Morbo,

    Good post, but Social Securityt does not need any fixing. It is actually quite likely that neither tax increases nor benefit cuts will be needed anytime in the next 75 years to keep Social Security paying the currently promised level of benefits. All the forecasts which show the trust fun running out are based on levels of economic growth much lower than we have had over the last 75 years. If Economic growth is the same in the next 75 years as in the last 75 years (about 3.2% per year) then there will likely be no problem.

  • “the Democrats have an answer on Social Security: Keep the system intact. Obviously, at some point, ensuring the continued viability of the system will require tax increases, benefits cuts or some combination thereof.”

    So, they have no plan on HOW to achieve their plan. That sums up, at least to me, as no plan.

  • Just remove the ridiculous and arbitrary $90,000 ceiling on FICA contributions and the problem is solved. If by any chance that doesn’t do it, introduce some level of means test – e.g., non-payment if payment would amount to less than 1/100th of a percent of the recipient’s total income from all sources.

  • Because if they can’t come up with ideas, they fall into the salient point that they have no ability to lead.

  • Heh, I literally could not think of any program they’ve created that has lasted so long. I’d love to hear of one – maybe I’m missing the obvious…?

  • Sigh. It must be so hard for Charles Krauthammer, conservative affluent white heterosexual guy that he is, to really be heard these days. For the record, Krauthammer’s “I sure hate Bill Clinton” proclamations proved valuable training for his next project: “I sure think Al Gore is a lunatic”. Yet he also wrote about other topics, including “I sure hate icky gay marriage”, and “I sure know a lot about a lot of stuff, lucky for you”, to name a few.

    I hope that clears up one of those ex-agg-er-a-tions. Onward, Fristian soldiers…

  • Comments are closed.