The view from down here

Kondracke:

Democrats hissed Bush when he said that the system would eventually go "bankrupt," but it will - in 2042 or 2052, depending on who's estimating - and by law, benefits will have to be cut.

So, Bush has the high ground in at least addressing the issue, and that has given him the opportunity to seize the initiative in proposing a solution. Right now, the Democrats are reinforcing the GOP caricatures of them as naysaying obstructionists.

Uh, Democrats didn't "hiss."

Would this be the same "high ground" that Clinton deserved for addressing the issue and was met with resounding negativity by Republicans who produced no alternative plan either? That "high ground?"

And while Clinton actually proposed a solution that helped deal with the projected shortfall, the Bush plan, so far, does nothing but add more debt. So in Mort's mind, if I notice a problem with tree rot I am on the "high ground," even if my proposal is to cut down all remaining trees so they don't get affected.

And Republicans can claim that they are offering something good to younger workers - a bigger return on their tax money than Social Security allows. And, they'll be right: Social Security earns 1.8 percent annual interest, while a mixed stock-bond index fund will return 4.9 percent after inflation.

Republicans can claim it all they want, but it is simply not true. Factoring in any cuts to the system as it stands (remember, Bush has ruled out tax increases), the personal accounts are a losing proposition. The cuts would be so deep, that few if any investors would overcome these inital cuts.

Bush ought to be willing to consider raising taxes as a Social Security solution. But, to drive him there, Democrats will have to make a case for why he should. They can't fight something with nothing.

Here's a case for why Bush should be willing to raise taxes: It actually fixes the proposed problem. If Bush really wants to fix Social Security permanently, this would do it. I would think that would be reason enough.