Democrats in Denial

That’s the title of this surprisingly tart Washington Post editorial about the Democrats aversion to realistic solutions to the looming Social Security problem: “But to judge by the Democratic presidential candidates, fiscal discipline has its limits: It stops at the edge of tackling the real dangers to the country's solvency, Social Security and Medicare.”

This editorial dovetails nicely with an essay from the Cato Institute titled: “Democrats should be asked about Social Security”. An excerpt:

And what do the presidential candidates think should be done to fix this problem? George Bush has made his position clear: He would allow younger workers to invest a portion of their payroll taxes privately through individual accounts. White House sources have spent the last several weeks telling reporters that support for Social Security changes will be a central domestic plank in Bush's reelection bid. Whether you support his proposal or not, at least you know where he stands.

But, so far, whenever the Democrats are asked about their views, their responses have been equal parts pandering and evasion. All of them favor "saving" Social Security. And all of them oppose "privatizing" the program-even Joe Lieberman who dropped his support for individual accounts when he became Al Gore's running mate. With little effort, they can all work themselves into a fury of righteous indignation over the president's "secret plan" that would leave elderly Americans eating dog food.

But what do they actually favor?

They favor “mend it don’t end it” and kicking the can down the road. As I’ve said before, I’ve given up on Social Security (I’m 35). As long as the government keeps their grubby hands off my 401(k) everything will be cool baby. But if some hard-strapped federal takes a sidelong glance at the money that I’ve saved up for my retirement, it’s going to be Superfly TNT Guns of Navarone time.