Nancy Pelosi, Democrat leader in the U.S. House, was going for the big moment in last night's response to the President's State of the Union address. She pulled out a reference to Bush's 1978 campaign for Congress in which he called for personal accounts to improve Social Security. Her claim, and hoped-for big moment, was that Bush predicted big trouble in Social Security by 1988 if personal accounts were not created.
Social Security obviously survived that decade, but what Pelosi doesn't want you to think about is why Social Security didn't fail then. Payroll tax increases in 1982 deserve the credit. And herein lies the persistent difference between the left and right on solving government funding issues.
Washington Democrats, when they aren't making the claim that Social Security is A-OK as far as the eye can see, say that raising payroll taxes will surely alleviate any future shortfall. Now let's be clear -- the numbers that Democrats keep pointing to do make a case for no imminent catastrophe in Social Security. And yes, the Bush assumptions do require unusually slow economic growth for their projections to occur. But Democrats here are only doing what they do best, arguing with a claim the President isn't making. The problem with Social Security is that is on a track to failure, not that the track itself is a short one. Further, the main issue is what are we trying to accomplish with Social Security and what works best, not, as the Democrats claim, that "good enough for government work" is good enough. Make no mistake: tax increases would help Social Security. But tax increases represent the Democrats' best response to Bush's reform agenda, and that is, politically speaking, a beautiful thing. Bush is looking for better solutions and the Democrats just want us to send them more of our money. See how that is shaping up for a series of Bush victories in his second term?
The pundits who claim Bush can't win on Social Security reform haven't seen this yet. And they don't see it in Kentucky's budget battles either. One problem is that Frankfort Republicans aren't playing the same game Bush is. They can't, yet. While Kentucky's House Democrats say that raising taxes represents the best way to fix the Commonwealth's fiscal woes, Republicans seem to be agreeing, but only in a revenue neutral fashion, so as to avoid the wrath of Grover Norquist. Democrats salivated last spring over the prospect of running for re-election on the strength of stopping the Governor from raising taxes on satellite systems and cigarettes. That didn't work, but only because there was no budget agreement. Next time around, Kentucky Republicans should look to Washington for how to emphasize the difference between the two parties. Fletcher did that fairly well by offering to let Democrats pass a budget without tax modernization. Here's hoping they take the bait. If the Dems stick to a budget that doesn't fix our fundamental problems, the races of 2006 can cast them as lacking the courage to act decisively. When the Democrats are relegated to minority status in the House, then we can change our focus to real reform. And we will then be able to move faster than rigid Washington. General Assembly rules give less power to minority obstructionists than does Congress.
