What do Democrats Want?

It is said that Sigmund Freud’s dying words were "What do women want, my God, what do they want? What does a woman want." Fortunately, the founder of psychoanalysis expired before being called upon either to answer his own question, or to listen to the cacophony of contradictory responses.

It is fair now to ask “What do Democrats want? What do they want?” But it is unclear that there exists any helpful answer.

It has been an article of Democratic faith – one of those things that everyone knows – that George W. Bush is a lightweight: Not too smart, a frat-boy who never held a job his dad hadn’t got for him, politics was just something he thought he’d do and see if he liked it. Recollect that Garry Trudeau’s long-standing (and, by now, rather tedious) representation of the President is a Roman legionnaire’s helmet with nothing inside: there’s no there there. See here from Sunday, April 10.

But comes now WaPo’s distinguished columnist, E.J. Dionne, with a shocking admission: “George W. Bush is an egghead.” This was the theme of Dionne’s column last Friday (registration required). To be an egghead – an intellectual – would seem to be a good thing. Dionne notes “Older liberals still treasure the late Adlai Stevenson, the original egghead and the failed Democratic presidential candidate in 1952 and 1956.” He might have added a reference to Woodrow Wilson, college president and certified thinker of big thoughts, whose tragedy is that his grandest idea for the promotion of that loftiest of goals, World Peace, came to naught with the failure of the United States to ratify the treaty creating the League of Nations.

I agree with Mr. Dionne’s assessment of the President, although I, unlike Dionne, do not find it a shocking revelation which upsets my settled world view. Dionne is right when he says

. . . the case for Bush as an egghead is overwhelming. One of the central characteristics of the Bush presidency is a profound commitment to theoretical notions, nurtured in think tanks and ideological magazines, and a relentless -- yes, even principled -- commitment to pushing them regardless of the facts or the consequences. The president's proposal for private accounts in Social Security is Exhibit A for eggheadism. There was little popular demand for these accounts. Most Americans like Social Security as it is.

Of course, Dionne cannot resist ruining a good thing by making it clear that in the President’s case, being “principled” actually means being stubborn, and a devotion to “theoretical notions” means a head filled with crack-pot schemes. Quite a chuckle there, no doubt, so very, very, droll.

It thus appears that one of thing that Democrats do not want is ideas. That is, they seem disdainful of principled proposals arising from thoughtful consideration of possible solutions to a problem. And the Democrat’s response to the President with respect to Social Security is Exhibit A for Democratic airheadism.

The “problem” with Social Security is really quite simple. The program is one that has both income, in the form of payroll taxes (the most regressive form of tax possible, disproportionately laid upon the young worker, and the low-paid worker, due from dollar one of wages), and outgo, in the form of retirement benefits, widow and orphan benefits, and disability benefits. And, while the “trust fund” fiction is just that, an accounting fiction, it is no less a useful fiction for understanding the problem.

Social Security is a water tank with two hoses attached: One adds a steady stream of water, the other drains out a steady stream. If, for a period of time, there is more water going in than water going out, then (at a future time) more water can be drained out than is put in -- for a while. But eventually the surplus pool of water is drawn off, and there is not enough inflow to support the outflow.

At the end of March of this year, the Social Security trustees issued their annual report, explaining that expenditures would begin to exceed income in about 2017, while the accumulated surplus would be exhausted in 2041. Thereafter, the mismatch between outlays and payroll tax income amounts to an unfunded obligation, in today’s dollars, of $4 trillion, viewed over a 75-year period. The SSA press release is [HERE].

Like your personal budget, the general structure of possible solutions is not complex, and involves either more income, or less outgo.

So far, the President has done three things with respect to this problem. First, he has drawn attention to it, and called for a long-term solution. Second, he has proposed a small, partial, privatization plan, that would permit some workers to opt to invest a portion of their Social Security contributions in an investment fund. Such investment funds could be little different from the Federal Government’s own Thrift Savings Plan, or the similar sorts of arrangements set up by private employers, like the AARP. Third, he has proposed a modification of future benefits, the result of which would be a reduction in expenditures.

Which brings us full circle, to our original question: What do Democrats want?

Nancy Pelosi, House Minority Leader, calls the President’s proposal “misleading” and says it will “weaken” the program. Her alternative proposal? None.

Senator Kennedy's government financed web site has a nifty little calculator that let’s you figure out how much your benefits would be cut by the President’s proposals. You will search in vain for any affirmative suggestions.

Harry Reid, Leader of Senate Democrats, says the President’s plan “makes deep cuts in middle-class benefits and adds 5 trillion dollars in debt.” But again, I could not find Senator Reid’s proposals.

There's nothing but complaints from both MoveOn, and the DNC itself. The best Howard Dean's new home could do is to demand that the President “do something” about high gasoline prices. The argument seems to be that he’s distracted by all this Social Security nonsense, and should concentrate on a REAL problem. Well, at least that’s an idea.

We are left with the disquieting feeling that while George W. Bush -- the egghead -- has ideas, the Democrats have only complaints. Even E.J. Dionne, having confessed only last Friday that the President is an intellectual, now reverses his field and demands that Democrats “walk away from the table” and refuse to set out their own proposals, or debate those of the President on the merits, apparently because the President’s ideas aren’t really ideas. Or something like that.

And so we have our original question:
"What do Democrats want? My God, what do they want?!”