WashPost to Dems: Where’s the beef?

Picking up on an issue I’ve been harping about for weeks, the WashPost upbraids the Democrats for failing to articulate a stand on Social Security in “Bartleby Democrats”:

At least, though, the president did spell out some possible changes and acknowledge that they won't be "easy." The Democrats' general response so far is a combination of exaggerated rhetoric and silence about alternatives. Senate Minority Leader Harry M. Reid (Nev.) makes an important point about the dangers of "Social Security roulette," but where, exactly, is his responsible alternative for making Social Security solvent? Democratic presidential nominee John F. Kerry set the responsibility bar low during the campaign, when he vowed that there would be no cuts in benefits on his watch if he were elected president. He had little more to offer on "Meet the Press" last weekend. "I do not believe we have to raise the retirement age," Mr. Kerry said. "I am absolutely opposed to cutting benefits, and I believe we can save Social Security in any number of ways, Tim, other than what President Bush wants to do." And those would be?

To be fair, Tim Russert asserted that Kerry supported raising taxes on the rich to which the sometime-Senator replied: “You can call it what you want.” I’ll call it a “tax hike.”