Dems on Social Security: The silence of the lambs

The Boston Globe's Washington bureau chief understands Bush & Co.'s Iraqification of Social Security.

The expected Social Security shortfall has been a perennial domestic concern in much the same way that Hussein's intransigence with arms inspectors was a perennial foreign-policy concern: From the White House to Congress to think tanks, policy makers worried about it, but presidents (including Bush) felt no immediate need to deal with it.

Then Bush decided to focus on it, and suddenly a long-term concern became intense and immediate.

Much as the Iraq war was preceded by speeches designed to show Hussein in the most threatening light, the Bush economic summit seemed designed to dominate a slow news week with the idea that failing to deal with Social Security now will hurt the national economy.

"The time to start making sacrifices is now . . . so that the markets can have confidence that we're on a course that is going to avoid a train wreck," Bush said at the summit.

Still, the link between the current economy and a Social Security deficit that will begin to strike benefits in decades is every bit as speculative and theoretical as the link between Hussein and the war on terrorism in late 2002. But few people in the political mainstream would dismiss the idea out of hand, and arguing that Bush's predictions are a bit too dire seems unnecessary to most Democrats at this stage [my italics].

As Peter Canellos notes, Democrats are once again being lulled to sleep by an administration that knows the power of marketing policy and the effectiveness of fear mongering. Democrats' inability to effectively counter the rhetoric of Bush in his run up to the war in Iraq killed them at the polls in 2002 and made Kerry look flip-floppety in 2004.

And they are making the same mistake now.

The best way, in my humble opinion, for Democrats to take this on is not to simply argue that we should do nothing about Social Security. Instead, they should take a two-pronged approach. State clearly and frequently that Social Security is not about to collapse and provide a plan for reasonable changes that will guarantee the trust fund's health for decades to come (remember the "lock box?"). At the same time, employ a little fear mongering themselves. Point out that the real entitlement crisis is Medicare, a crisis exacerbated by Bush's ridiculous prescription drug plan (that few seniors like, anyway).

There are any number of ways to frame the debate, but if Democrats don't begin to do so soon, they will continue to appear to be irrelevant obstructionists, doomed to further losses in 2006.

They might also take a page from Republicans: Harry & Louise, anyone?