Social Security Reform and Congress

http://www.iSteve.com/05JanA.htm#worst.of.both.worlds

A reader writes:

Unlike Iraq, Congress is not simply going to vote to let Bush have at the Social Security system. The reform bills are going to be debated over a longer period of time and written in committees with chairmen used to exercising meaningful decision-making authority, not simply rubberstamping Bush policies. If a bill passes at all it will probably take at least 1-2 years, if not longer. By the time it reaches implementation phase, the Bush administration will be nearing its end.

The reform debate is going to have a larger effect on the members of Congress than it will Bush. Dubya will never have to face the voters again; any accomplishment on this front will only go into the legacy scrapbook at his presidential library. Social Security is one of those rare issues that get incumbent congressmen kicked out of office. Proposed benefit cuts cost the Republicans a number of House seats in 1982 and their Senate majority in 1986. Efforts to rein in Medicare spending doomed a lot of Republican congressmen in 1996 and helped turn that year’s presidential race into an easy Clinton romp when many had initially thought the GOP would be competitive even with a candidate like Bob Dole.

This is also the kind of legislation that tends to pass only with bipartisan support (think welfare reform) and can otherwise tank spectacularly even if the president’s party controls both houses of Congress (think Hillary’s health care plan). Republicans are going to want cover from their Democratic colleagues to mitigate the usefulness of the issue to their general-election challengers. The House is going to want cover from the Senate before going along with anything that could be construed as a benefit cut. Senate Republicans are going to need to pull in at least five Democrats and hold onto all their moderates to be able to beat a filibuster. If anything, Congress is likely to err on the side of being too cautious.

Which doesn’t necessarily mean the end result will be good. The Medicare prescription-drug bill and NCLB are fine examples. Both were deeply flawed proposals from the beginning, but at least contained some reforms for which a case can be made. In Congress, most of the free-market reforms suggested by the White House were stripped out and the bills were loaded up with new government spending. They both passed with bipartisan support and Bush, rather than objecting, declared victory, held signing ceremonies and went home.

So, we could end up with the worst of both the Democrats and the Republicans in the bill. Or, we might get lucky and both parties in Congress and the President work together for the common good like in the (unfortunately, short-lived) tax simplification reforms of 1986.

Steve Sailer's homepage and blog is iSteve.com