Iâm not sure what exactly it will take for the conventional wisdom to the Washington press corps and the elite punditocracy to stop saying that President Bush has a plan to save Social Security from insolvency and the Democrats donât. Youâd think the absence of any such plan on Bushâs part would be enough, but clearly itâs not.
How about the fact that Bush himself now admits it? According to Dan Froomkinâs White House Briefing at the Washington Post online, Bush told a roundtable of reporters yesterday that he has no plan:
But he expressed astonishment that people constantly refer to “Bush’s plan”: “I haven’t laid out a plan,” he said. “I’ve laid out some ideas that I think ought to be considered for a plan, and that’s what’s important for people to know.”
And in his press conference today, Bush repeated, âI have not laid out a plan yet — intentionally. I have laid out principles.â That really ought to settle the question.
Meanwhile, Bush also admitted that private accounts do not make Social Security solvent. âPersonal accounts do not solve the issue,â he said.
Nonetheless, Bush insists on private accounts. From the roundtable discussion:
Q: Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid [D-Nev.] said if he could ask you one question, it would be, ‘Why doesn’t he take [Social Security account] privatization off the table, and let’s talk about solvency for Social Security? What would you say to him?
A: I would say, ‘I’m willing to talk about solvency; please come to the table,’ and I think it’s very important for people to consider personal accounts. It’s a concept that I think is very important to be discussed. . . .
Q: There was some confusion when you referred to personal investment accounts as an ‘add-on’ in a recent Social Security [promotional] appearance [in Westfield, N.J.]. Would you be open to add-on personal accounts, as opposed to a personal accounts carved out of payroll taxes?
A: No, I think the ‘carve-out’ is the way to go. What I was referring to in my speech, I was explaining to people that the capital in the personal account would yield a certain amount of interest, and that interest — the monies would be in addition to a Social Security check you were receiving.
Q: So you would rule out add-on accounts?
A: In my judgment, the best way to go forward is to allow a personal account to be created out of the payroll taxes being paid into the system.”
So letâs be clear where things stand. This is fundamentally an ideological fight. Democrats want to keep Social Security as a form of social insurance, and Bush wants to transform it into something else. Democrats are not willing to make a deal on solvency if it means giving up social insurance. And Bush is not willing to make a deal on solvency unless they do.
Given all this, how on earth can so many people continue to claim that Bush wants to save Social Security while the Democrats have their heads in the sand? How can this almost universally-accepted aphorism be said to have any basis in reality?