Sheep's Clothing

If you just read the first few paragraphs of this morning's story in the Washington Post, you get the impression that Lindsay Graham never got the memo on the "real" reason for changing Social Security.

Sen. Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.), who has spent weeks attempting to recruit Democratic support for a plan to restructure Social Security, said yesterday that Republicans "made a strategic mistake" by initially focusing on a proposal to create individual investment accounts.

The accounts, the centerpiece of President Bush's proposal, would benefit young and poorer workers by letting them use compound interest to help make up for any benefit reductions, Graham said. But he said the accounts, by themselves, will not fix the solvency problem Social Security faces as baby boomers begin to retire.

"We've now got this huge fight over a sideshow," Graham said during a meeting with Washington Post reporters and editors. "It's always been a sideshow, but we sold it as the main event. [Critics are] attacking it as the undoing of Social Security. That's what frustrates me -- that we're off in a ditch over a sideshow, and there's plenty of blame to go around."

But, if you keep reading, and look between the lines, you can see the second phase of the assault on the Social Security system.

Graham suggests we all focus on the "solvency" of the system, as if preserving the system was really what this was all about. It's an idea which seems attractive, and will surely get some notice from Senate Democrats who haven't yet learned that working with these zealots is pointless. All Democrats would like the system to be "solvent."

But, when you look closely, it seems like Graham is using "solvency" as a synonym for "benefit cuts." Graham is moving to define the rhetorical space around the word "solvency," so that alternatives for change involving maintaining benefits, or just leaving the system alone for a while to go off and fix more serious problems, can't even come up.

Some Congressional Democrats have a magpie's attraction to fiddling with the details of programs, fighting to mitigate the worst by adjusting bills here and there, while getting distracted from principles. Graham is floating the perfect lure: work with me to figure out a 'fair' benefit cut to stabilize the system, he says. 'You can save Social Security by cooperating with me. I'm reasonable, not like those other guys.'

This trick won't need to fool many. Just enough to give them enough votes to pass a bill, which will then be amended in conference committee to look suspiciously like the President's proposal. This can then be voted on with no notice or reading, and pass.

I hope Democrats will refuse to fall for this. Rather, they should stop being the reactive party, and go on the attack. Instead of just opposing private accounts carved out of Social Security, they need to press the case that the Republicans are actively threatening something most Americans trust, or that we've got more important problems than "fixing" something that won't be broken for decades. Or hammer on the idea that rolling back the worst of the tax cuts would solve the problem, complete with heart-chilling personal examples of wealthy people who are making out like bandits. Starting to breathe easier is not appropriate.

Just when the Democrats are thinking "We may win this...", the Rethuglicans are bringing out the big guns. Graham (and Grassley) are dangling lures to foolish moderates in the Senate. In the Wall St. Journal, they've got an absurd editorial to prop up the base, written by an operative (who 'somehow' occupies a supposedly nonpartisan Trustee position.) And now Cheney has been unleashed to "sell" the plan across the country. The full-court press is happening now.

Meanwhile, if you're still wondering who is really rooting for private accounts, check out this very interesting post from a new blog, The Cunning Realist.