There are a million of these articles, but let’s just take a look at the one that appeared today in The Hill.
House and Senate Democrats have decided against introducing an alternative Social Security reform plan yet, preferring instead to focus attention and criticism on President Bush’s proposals, according to a number of senior Democratic aides.
Democrats have been consistently critical of the president’s plan to create personal retirement accounts as a way to salvage the Social Security system, but they have not yet introduced a plan of their own.
The tactic could go either way. According to a Newsweek poll yesterday, 65 percent of Americans agree with Bush that the Social Security system is in crisis. But more people oppose his plan to fix the entitlement than support him.
Kevin Drum explained very well yesterday how foolish the whole Dems-don’t-have-a-plan attack is. Dems are ready to sign onto add-on private accounts, and are open to discussion on adjusting payroll taxes, among other options, so it’s hardly as if the party is standing in the corner with its arms folded, saying “No” to any idea that’s floated.
But I’d like to pose a more basic question: Why on earth is it incumbent upon Dems to offer a plan at all?
First, Dems like the current system. What’s the Dem plan? It’s called “Social Security.” There’s a nationwide debate underway, which is fine, but it wasn’t our idea to overhaul a system that is on pace to remain strong for at least another four or five decades. Constant inquiries about the details of our non-existent plan make as much sense as asking where the GOP plan to reduce poverty is.
Second, Dems are in the minority. Republicans control the White House, Senate, and House, none of which has unveiled a formal, detailed proposal dealing with Social Security. How, exactly, did the burden shift to Dems?
And third, what incentive do the Dems have in offering a plan at all? Right now, the Republican majority has decided that Dems have no place at the negotiating table, can’t have their bills heard in committee, can’t offer amendments to key pieces of legislation, and in some instances, can’t even read bills before voting on them. Can anyone reasonably argue that a Dem plan to “reform” Social Security would get a serious hearing by the GOP majority? Of course not; Republicans just want something to criticize to take the heat off a White House plan that isn’t going anywhere fast.
Republicans see a crisis where none exist. Republicans want to privatize Social Security, cut benefits, and add trillions to the debt, while ignoring long-term questions about solvency. All the while, those same Republicans are inflexible about the way in which this issue is approached (no touching tax cuts for millionaires, no touching payroll taxes, and mandatory private accounts and benefit cuts). Naturally, this leads to questions … such as why the Dems haven’t offered their own proposal?
The very idea that it’s incumbent on Dems to unveil a competing plan — while we’re still waiting for a formal proposal from Bush — is utterly ridiculous.