Dems On Social Security: “No Taxes, No Talks!”
It doesn’t take an intellectual heavyweight to realize that Congressional Democrats have a serious comprehension problem. Words don’t have the same meanings for liberals as they do for regular people. Take the words “no pre-conditions” for example.
WASHINGTON (AP) — Back-channel efforts by the White House and Capitol Hill Democrats to begin trying to negotiate a solution to the fiscal problems of Social Security and other federal benefit programs appeared to collapse Wednesday.
At issue is a little-publicized attempt by the White House and members of Congress to set up a working group of lawmakers and top administration officials to fortify benefit programs like Social Security and Medicare for the severe future fiscal challenges due to the looming retirement of the Baby Boom generation. Three-fourths of the group, evenly split between Democrats and Republicans, would have had to agree on any solution.
But Senate Budget Committee Chairman Kent Conrad, D-N.D., accused the White House of acting in bad faith at a panel hearing that turned acrimonious over White House Budget Director Rob Portman’s unwillingness to acknowledge that tax increases should be part of any fix for the long-term problems of the huge federal benefit programs.
“We have an opportunity here to work together, but the only way I know in human relations for there to be resolution between parties who have different views is for both sides to compromise,” Conrad said. “Unfortunately I see virtually none on your side. And I regret that more than I can say.”
Conrad then gaveled the hearing to an end and immediately left.
Portman says the administration is willing to come to the negotiating table with no preconditions — a change from the stance President Bush took two years ago, when he ruled out hikes in Social Security payroll taxes. But Portman told reporters, “The first step shouldn’t prejudge where we end up.”
This is the second time in as many years that the Bush White House has tried to initiate meaningful negotiations with Democrats over the looming problem of unfunded entitlement liabilities. When they tried a public approach, Democrats refused to even discuss the issue unless the White House agreed to a tax increase and took private accounts off the table.
We are now two years along, and the Social Security Commission announced late last year that the date of the “Trust Fund” demise is not two, but three years closer than previously estimated.
Perhaps someone can explain to me the logic behind the Democrats’ adamant addiction to tax increases… despite all the evidence that the revenue windfall is short-lived and the long-term effect on the economy and the Treasury, is deleterious.
Finally, a question: Would the individual who earlier this evening voiced his grudging, comparative approval for ND’s Senators care to re-think that endorsement?
