Out from the wilderness: a sane Democrat

They do exist! In today’s Opinion Journal, former Senator Bob Kerrey urges the Democrats to join and shape the Social Security reform debate in “Pride and Prejudice – “Hell no, we won’t go” is the wrong liberal approach on Social Security reform”:

It is at this point in time that the demographic and monetary demands of the baby boom generation will become painfully apparent. The disinvestment in public infrastructure caused by the growth in Medicare and Medicaid will become even worse than it is today. And the nature of this crisis will be considerably more daunting than that faced squarely by Congress and the president in 1983. Liberals, who have silently watched the share of state and federal spending apportioned to the elderly grow at the expense of education, training, child care and research, will be appalled to discover how much their silence has cost them.

The trajectory of entitlement spending is such that it will swallow all federal spending on programs that people consider part of “government” from school lunches to homeland security. As the Washington Post notes today, the situation isn’t a crisis yet but that doesn’t mean reform isn’t needed soon:

Mr. Bush isn't the first to deploy the "c" word to describe Social Security's predicament. "This fiscal crisis in Social Security affects every generation," President Bill Clinton warned in 1998. Every year that changes are put off makes them more expensive -- and more painful to future generations. Whether private accounts would help is a topic we'll tackle in a future editorial. But a bit of hyperbole in the cause of generating responsible action on Social Security isn't the worst sin that is apt to be committed in the course of the coming debate.

Regrettably, it looks like the Democrats are already prepared to oppose any meaningful Social Security reform and fill the empty space with flaccid promises to “save Social Security” by holding tight to an unsustainable status quo.