The Gospel According to Matthew

The Social Security fight is, so far, going well for the good guys. Nevertheless, some good guys seem determined to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. Today, on several separate occassions, several smart people who I respect seemed to be edging toward the "Democrats need an alternative plan" kool-aid. It is vital that people refrain from drinking said beverage and instead taste the sweet, sweet dogma that I will lay out herein.

Consider the following possible alternatives:

• Solvency Through Pre-Funding: This generates a replay of the 1983 Greenspan bait-and-switch.
• Add-on Accounts: "Everyone's for private accounts, but Democrats also want to raise taxes."
• An Decent Compromise that Can Pass The Senate: All worthy elements junked in conference, moderate Republicans vote for the conference report.
• A Good Bill With Poison Pill So Senate Republicans Won't Pass It: Replay of Homeland Security, GOP counters with similar proposal containing an anti-Democrat poison pill.

No good choices. The only alternative: No alternative. Keep in mind that Bush has not put forward a plan, Democrats are under no obligation to put forward an alternative to nothing. What's more, the Republicans do not -- and will not, provided the Democrats stay united -- have the votes to pass anything. The math of privatization requires some combination of higher taxes (à la Lindsay Graham), massive debt (à la Paul Ryan), or miserly accounts (à la White House background briefing). Any of these options will alienate some Republican legislators. You can try to find a balance between the various factors, but the GOP majorities simply aren't large enough to finesse this dilemma. With Democratic cover -- and the knowledge that with Democratic collaboration a bill will pass -- you can put together enough Republican votes to pass something. Without cover, nothing will pass. Importantly, Democratic opposition need not be the key story here. The GOP has a majority -- united they can pass what they want. If privatization fails, it will fail because of disagreements inside the Republican caucus.

The Bushian plan (and the Fainthearted Fear) at the moment is to convince a large majority of people that there is, if not a crisis, then at least a large problem. This, then, is supposed to frighten Representatives and Senators into voting for something. This is a plan that will (provided the Democrats stay united) backfire on the GOP. The people will be convinced that this is the most important issue and that "something" must be done, but the Republicans won't have the votes to do anything. The Democrats are in the minority. They have no power. They have no obligation to solve the nation's problems, simply because they have no ability to solve problems. If large problems go unsolved, that's the fault of the people -- i.e., Republicans -- governing the country. Democratic leaders must look themselves in the mirror every morning and say to themselves, "I have no power."

But mustn't Democrats stand for something other than "just say no?" Yes. Democrats must have a positive agenda for the country. But they must think about this straight. Suppose we had President Kerry, Speaker Pelosi, and Majority Leader Reid and were, therefore, in a position to implement a positive agenda for the country. Would this agenda involve resolving hypothetical financial problems with the single most secure element of the federal budget? Clearly, no. The Democratic agenda should be the Democratic agenda, not some ghostly mirror of the GOP agenda. The Social Security debate involves two kinds of issues -- fiscal issues, and retirement security issues. As long as Bush is talking Social Security, it's natural for Democrats to lay out those portions of their agenda that relate to these topics, rather than the portions of the agenda that relate to, say, education or crime control or environmental regulations. Some topics Democrats could outline a positive vision on:

• Bringing the general fund budget into balance.
• Reducing Medicare expenditures by eliminating some of the pointless corporate subsidies in the 2003 Medicare Reform Act.
• Replacing tax deductions for saving with tax credits for saving to broaden access to existing private account-esque devices like IRAs and 401 (k) plans.
• Reform of the private pension system.
• Spitzer-esque Wall Street and corporate governance proposals.
• Making the point that current fiscal policy implies an interest rate hike that will wipe out large portions of most families savings by depressing home sale values.

Smart people who can gin up alternative Social Security plans could probably think of more things along these lines and would be well-advised to do so. It isn't that hard. The bullet points above should be wrapped in some kind of language about the information economy, responding to the challenges of the 21st century, the changing structure of the workforce, and perhaps some slogan about "every man a capitalist" or something that sounds better but means something similar.

The truth will set you free: There is no crisis, and the President has no plan.