ROUND UP THE USUAL SUSPECTS:

Battle Lines Form on Social Security: Democrats are finding unity in their opposition to private retirement accounts, building an obstacle to Bush's move to change the program. (Janet Hook, December 19, 2004, LA Times)

The Social Security debate is providing the first big test of how Democrats in Congress plan to play out their role as the heavily outnumbered opposition party. If their actions so far are any indication, they are not going to be cowed into cooperating with President Bush.

Democrats are overwhelmingly opposed to Bush's plan to allow younger workers to divert some Social Security payroll taxes to private investment accounts.

In the wake of their drubbing in the 2004 elections, they are still sorting out exactly how to wage this fight. But they sharpened their attack last week, in response to a two-day White House economic conference intended to showcase the argument for major change in Social Security.

Democrats deployed leading members of Congress to attack the most basic of Bush's premises: They argued that the program's problem was not as dire as Bush had claimed — and that private accounts would make the problem worse.

Liberal interest groups, including the AFL-CIO and the National Assn. for the Advancement of Colored People, also mobilized last week to join the opposition. [...]

Democrats are probably more unified than ever in their opposition to private accounts. Some respected Democrats had been sympathetic to the idea in the past, but most are no longer on Capitol Hill. Sen. John B. Breaux of Louisiana is retiring at the end of this year. Rep. Charles W. Stenholm of Texas lost his reelection bid. Former Sen. Bob Kerrey of Nebraska left Congress in 2000. Former Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan of New York died last year.

There are now a handful of moderate Democrats, mostly from states Bush won in 2004, who are trying to keep an open mind about private accounts. A leader of that faction is Sen. Thomas Carper (D-Del.), who is trying to develop a Democratic alternative to Bush's plan that does not expose retirees to financial risk and that does not finance the cost of transition to a new system entirely by government borrowing.

"I don't think it is sufficient for Democrats just to say no," Carper said.

Will Marshall, president of the Progressive Policy Institute, a centrist Democratic think tank, said it would be damaging for the party to be seen as hostile to "reform."

"Having simply tried to demonize privatization in three successive elections and not having tremendous results, they have to try something better," Marshall said. "They have to develop a progressive alternative for reforming Social Security."

But Rep. Robert T. Matsui (D-Sacramento), a party leader on the issue, is taking a different tack. In a conference call with reporters last week, he steadfastly refused to discuss a Democratic alternative to solving Social Security's problems.

Bad enough the Democrats have manuevered themselves onto the slender siude of this wedge, but depending on their most dated and corrupt special interests to fight it is insane.

Posted by Orrin Judd at December 19, 2004 8:44 AM