I guess Dick Durbin gets to play the bad guy. I am not optimistic that the Gang of Six will be able to produce anything that can pass Congress. I understand the premise of their argument. Democrats don’t want to touch Social Security and Republicans don’t want any tax increases, but they can basically trade one for the other. If both sides give a little on one of their sacred principles, then we can get a compromise. The problem comes in convincing either side to actually violate one of their sacred principles, regardless of what they get in return. In any case, it falls to Durbin, among the Gang of Six, to try to sell us on cuts to Social Security. It falls to Durbin because neither Sen. Mark Warner (D-VA) nor Sen. Kent Conrad (D-ND) has much credibility with progressives.
Now, there is an argument that can be made in favor of trading Social Security cuts for tax increases. At the root of the argument are two things. First, the premise that it is better to tackle the debt now than later, and better to tackle it with a Democrat in the White House than with a Republican. Second, the premise that, without touching Social Security, the Republicans will never agree to increase revenue. They have effective veto power over any deal, so even if Social Security isn’t contributing to the deficit in any direct way, it has to be on the table or everything collapses. I think the key is to examine the validity of those two premises.
It is probably better to tackle the debt now than later, and to do it with a Democrat in the White House. I think that’s a sound premise. It’s also true that the Republicans will make cuts to Social Security a condition of any deal that raises revenue. The problem, as I see it, is that the two sides still won’t be able to come to an agreement. In other words, giving in on Social Security will alienate too many Democrats, while raising taxes will alienate too many Republicans.
In this case, the premise is that a deal is not possible, which is what I believe to be true. And operating under that premise changes the political calculus. Both sides want to appear reasonable and willing to make concessions. Both sides want to be able to accuse the other side of intransigence. So, it’s actually in both sides’ interest to signal that they’re willing to make compromises that they are not actually willing to make.
I guess my biggest critique of this process is that we’re demanding too little. I mean, it’s nice to get Tom Coburn and Mike Crapo and Saxby Chambliss on the record saying that we’re going to have to raise revenues. It serves the same purpose for us as getting Durbin on the record saying we need to cut Social Security does for the Republicans. So, that’s kind of a wash on the surface. But dig deeper and you realize that raising revenues is directly related to the budget shortfalls while Social Security is only indirectly related, and through no fault of its own. If we had put the Social Security surplus in Al Gore’s lockbox where it belonged, then we would have had to raise revenues long before now.
I guess I just fantasize that at some not-too-distant point in the future we can win the argument sufficiently that we can craft a better solution than punishing seniors for the sins of a federal government that is too afraid to tax rich people. It’s probably not true that we can do that, but as long as the hope exists, I don’t see any grand bargain actually coming to fruition.
