I’m trying to think of the reasoning behind these efforts, but I’m having a little trouble.
House Republican leaders promised yesterday to hold a vote as early as this summer on adding personal accounts to Social Security, but said they might do it without any effort to stave off the system’s insolvency.
The leaders also said they will act on legislation creating personal investment accounts without concern for when the Senate would act. Until now, GOP House leaders have been reluctant to take the lead on Social Security because of a concern about a possible backlash in the midterm races next year — especially if the bill dies in the Senate.
Their reluctance was well-founded. Republicans, at this point, are already in a tough spot when looking ahead to the 2006 cycle. The idea is you don’t want to put the caucus on record supporting something the public hates — say, privatizing Social Security — especially if the Senate isn’t going to pass anything anyway. All it does is give Dems campaign ammunition against vulnerable GOP incumbents.
In other words, if you’re the DCCC, your ideal scenario is to see House Republicans bring a privatization bill to the floor. If the legislation passes, Dems win because they’ll use that vote relentlessly in the midterms. If just enough Republicans break ranks to defeat the bill, it’s another huge setback for the Bush White House. Either way, Social Security is on the front burner and Dems are happy.
Maybe the GOP will come up with a decent bill? Not so much.
[GOP] leaders acknowledged that the measure they are considering would make the deficit worse, and do nothing to deal with the president’s rationale for bringing up the issue in the first place: projections that the system will run out of money for scheduled benefits when the baby boomers retire.
Once again, a whole lot of Republicans will be looking across the aisle asking, “Why are all those Democrats smiling?”