The word of the day, kids, is "plan" -- we can't criticize Bush because he hasn't graced us with his "plan," but Democrats are obstructionizing because they haven't offered a "plan" yet. But if Bush's non-plan consists of borrowing trillions of dollars to phase out traditional Social Security guarantees -- which we know it does -- then I'll take the Dems' non-plan over that any day.

MYTH: Bush has no plan

People don't have a plan to judge, so they express skepticism. (Byron York, "Winning numbers?" National Review, 3/15/05)

REALITY

Bush tries to play up this notion in order to divert criticism. E.g. "I haven't laid out a plan. I've laid out some ideas that I think ought to be considered for a plan, and that's what's important for people to know." (White House Briefing, 3/16/05.) But in fact, there is much we do know. We know that Bush really, really wants private accounts, for example. And we know that his plan involves carving out a third of Social Security towards a limited selection of investment options, and we know that in order for this to have a "net neutral effect," as his quasi-plan claims, there will be a compounded 3% clawback from one's traditional benefits, we know that the personal accounts will largely be automatically converted into annuities. And so on. We can be fairly certain he does have a plan, somewhere. And we know basically what it looks like: Plan 2 of the President's Commission. He just hasn't "revealed" it in the form of a printed manual -- most likely, so that it can't be officially criticized until the day it is voted on.

One thing we don't know is how Bush intends to address the issue of "solvency," since he has admitted "personal accounts do not solve the issue."

MYTH: Dems have no plan

Democrats wanted to know where he got that "we" stuff. They would still rather be caught dead than caught agreeing with Bush on anything. Bush let it be known he was ready to accommodate them on that, too, if they insisted. Ignoring that not-so-subtle caution, one by one they rejected any and all remedial approaches Bush set forth for debate. Take everything off the table you put there, they demanded of the president, radically redefining the word negotiation. (John L. Perry, "Derailing the third rail," NewsMax, 3/14/05)

[Bush] has raised a serious issue that needs attention--the very solvency of Social Security--which Democrats have never touched. [...] To the Democrats: Just saying no is not a policy and demographics are not destiny. Ignore the "ownership society" at your own peril. (John Zogby, "Investors for Bush," Wall Street Journal, 3/15/05)

The problem with the Democrats is that they have been lured into a risky political strategy by their leadership to attempt to outfox President Bush and the American people. The Democratic leadership has its members, especially in the Senate, believing they can demagogue the issue this year and next, use the fear and anger they generate against Republicans... (Jack Kemp, "Stop desperately seeking Democrats," Town Hall, 3/12/05)

Bush and some Republicans have already brought ideas and plans to the table. Democrats have offered nothing but scare tactics, distortions, and to just say no to everything. (Herman Cain, "Dirty little secrets," Town Hall, 3/15/05)

RUSH: One of the things that amazes me: Here we have a 70-year-old program, essentially, and the Democrats will allow no change in it whatsoever.

[...] DICK CHENEY: [I]f the Democrats do take the route that they're going to filibuster any changes or modification in the Senate, I think that's going to be a loser for them long term. I don't know that I voted for somebody to come back here and represent me in the United States Senate and get paid as well as they're paid and sit on their hands and do nothing and keep everyone else from doing anything. I really think that that's a dereliction of duty on their part. They don't have to agree with us in terms of solution, but they do have to engage in the debate. If they're not going to get in the arena and be a part of this process, they might as well pack it in and go home. (Rush Limbaugh, interview with Dick Cheney, 3/11/05)

But because the Democratic leadership is intent on denying Mr. Bush a "victory" on Social Security, they are whipping their members to not negotiate with the president or congressional Republicans. Thus, a few weeks ago Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid announced that his fellow Democratic senators were completely united in refusing to deal on the issue. (Tony Blankley, "Democrats fall on the ball," Washington Times, 3/9/05)

REALITY

Isn't that funny? Bush doesn't have a plan, Democrats don't have a plan -- doesn't anybody have a plan?

In reality, Democrats have been talking about solutions to the issue of solvency. "Democrats have a plan for solvency. And everyone has a fairly clear idea what it would be. It'd be something along the lines of Bob Ball's [link] or the Orszag/Diamond plan [link], a mix of tax increases and benefit cuts to bring the numbers into line -- something that would not require particularly drastic moves on either side." (Josh Marshall, 3/14/05)

For example, just last month, this web site noted that the supposed "crisis" isn't all it's cracked up to be -- a projection that, under extremely pessimistic economic conditions, there will be a reduction in benefits (above today's level) if nothing is done before 2042 or 2052. But we added:

Of course, we’re not proposing that we sit back and twiddle our thumbs. Oh no. We realize the value of responsible planning, so we propose a mixture of minor taxes and cuts. For example, merely raising the cap on the regressive payroll tax from $90,000 to $140,000 would restore the projected shortfall by 43%, as AARP proposes .

Little "tweaking" like this might not sound so exciting, but it’s the only thing that will do the job ­ as the administration has admitted , its plan will do nothing to improve Social Security’s "solvency" -- and in fact, due to massive borrowing, the plan will make things worse.

Private accounts do not help Social Security's finances -- and the president himself has admitted as much. If Bush is serious about solvency, which is the crisis he's drumming up around the country, then he will discuss options that address the projected shortfall, and leave his pet project out. Democrats have made known their willingness to "deal" on anything but privatized carve-outs.

Instead of private accounts, Democrats proposed a system in which risk is assumed by the government and an adequate and fair benefit is guaranteed to all retirees. The year was 1935.

MYTH: Solvency

Obviously, long-term solvency of the Social Security system is not the Democrats' true long-term goal. Solvency cannot be achieved by reducing benefits, increasing taxes, and increasing government spending. (Cain)

In recent weeks, we fear President Bush and the Republicans in Congress have been suckered into a debate about shoring up Social Security finances, and have put on the table a series of unattractive options voters ultimately will reject. This is precisely the debate the Democrats want to lure the GOP into. (Stephen Moore and Larry Hunter, "... from the hijackers," Washington Times, 3/14/05)

REALITY

Just to clear up this "solvency" issue:

(1) Social Security's solvency is not at great risk. In the 90s, the Trust Fund was projected to run out in 2029; by 1998, the doomsday had moved to 2034; and today, we talk about 2042. All of these projections were based on an economic growth of 1.8% for the next 75 years. Our economy has never had so low a rate for any 15-year period, not even if we include the Great Depression. We've had 3.5% growth over the last 75 years, and if the next 75 gives us 2.2% (just half of the growth in 2004), the Trust Fund will never run out. Even a brief period of healthy growth would be enough to make the Trust Fund last beyond the baby boom generation. The only shortfall comes if the next 75 years holds such a dire economy.

(2) The shortfall itself is not the end of the world. If that 1.8% growth comes true, then in 2042 or 2052, benefits will automatically be cut by about 20% or 30%. That's not a good thing -- but it's still more in real dollars than today's retirees get. And if you look at one alternative Bush has mentioned, so-called "price indexing," that would lead to a 26% cut in 2042 and 46% cut in 2075 -- much worse than if the system were left alone. Be very suspicious of "solutions" that make the situation worse.

(3) Small adjustments in taxes and benefits can, indeed, correct the shortfall. The Orszag-Diamond plan does just that, and the Congressional Budget Office confirms their numbers. At this point, the only "solution" Democrats are not interested in is privatization, which the president has admitted does not help the solvency of the system.

Bush and Republicans "have been suckered into a debate about shoring up Social Security finances"? That's what I call buyer's remorse. The president has been speaking about a financing "crisis" almost non-stop since his State of the Union speech; nobody was "lured" into that debate.