The question is out there: which Senate Dem might be ready to cut a deal with Sen. Lindsey Graham (R) of South Carolina on Social Security?
Pretty much all of them have issued strong statements which appear to place them in opposition.
But entertain this hypothetical.
What if current payroll tax revenues are left in place for now and private accounts are funded in whole or in part from new payroll tax revenues generated by raising or even lifting the payroll tax cap? Even in the medium-term it makes little difference which slice of the payroll tax pie phase-out begins with, for reasons we’ll describe. But such a maneuver could allow some straying Dem to argue that what they were signing on to was not in fact a carve-out.
I would judge any Senate Democrats’ pledge with this hypothetical — let’s call it the ‘Graham hypothetical’ — in mind.
And let’s also ask this question: Why the deep-seated urge to cut a deal when support for phase-out is fading, the president is stumbling and we may be on course toward a national consensus and reaffirmation in favor of preserving Social Security rather than going down the incremental phase-out road?
Once that happens, once the door is closed on phase-out, it will then be possible to make sensible changes to ensure the long-term solvency of the program. But there’s really no sense in looking for points of compromise with folks whose aim is phase-out.
If the patient is on the table, do you open him up when Kevorkian is still in the room?
