Earlier this month, House Ways and Means Social Security Subcommittee Chairman Jim McCrery (R-La.) raised a few eyebrows when he told a conference of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce that he’d like to see lawmakers take up Social Security [tag]privatization[/tag] again next year. Apparently, the White House is on the same page.
President George W. Bush, in private conversation, is talking about trying to revive his tax and Social Security reform proposals after the 2006 elections.
[tag]Bush[/tag] emphasized those two issues after his 2004 re-election victory, but neither made progress. He campaigned nationwide in 2005 for [tag]Social Security[/tag] personal accounts but never proposed a specific bill. His tax reform did not get beyond recommendations of a presidential commission.
If Democrats gain control of the House in this year’s elections, Bush’s tax and Social Security proposals will face a cold reception in a House Ways and Means Committee headed by Rep. Charles Rangel.
“Cold reception?” Bush’s campaign to privatize Social Security was his most embarrassing domestic debacle. Even Republicans took one look at what the White House wanted to do and started running the other way.
And yet, the issue is still lingering — and it’s worth taking a moment to consider why.
In June, the president, in reference to his Social Security plan, said, “If we can’t get it done this year, I’m going to try next year. And if we can’t get it done next year, I’m going to try the year after that, because it is the right thing to do.”
Shortly thereafter, White House Chief of Staff Josh Bolten “stressed his interest” in paving the way for a renewed push on Social Security.
From every angle, this seems more than foolish. As a matter of policy, there’s no way privatization could pass — it costs too much, delivers too little, and would make a difficult fiscal challenge much, much worse. As a matter of politics, the president’s plan pushed his post-election approval ratings into a downward spiral from which Bush has never recovered.
So why would the administration talk about it, repeatedly, and leak word to Novak that the president is anxious to “revive” the effort next year? I’m just throwing this out there, but what if the Bush gang would rather the Dems attack Social Security privatization than have the Dems hit the GOP on national security issues? Isn’t it at least possible that the administration is quietly but consistently mentioning Social Security privatization as a way to throw Dems off their game?
If Dems take the bait, the Republicans will say, “Social Security was so 2005. Why don’t the Dems want to talk about national security issues?”
Maybe there’s another explanation for it, but I can’t think of it. Dems are right to stay focused on Iraq, Rumsfeld, and national security. Running to domestic issues — where Dems already have a big advantage — didn’t work in ’02 or ’04, and it probably wouldn’t work this year either.
Eyes on the prize, Dems, eyes on the prize.