Elephantine Purity and Social Security

A story in the Washington Post this morning indicates that two senior Republicans in Congress--the Speaker of the House (Dennis Hastert) and the Majority Leader (Tom Delay) oppose raising the limit on Social Security taxes so that earnings greater than $90,000 would be taxed. Delay said (on Fox News) that "This Republican House didn't come here to raise taxes," and pointed out those earning more than $90,000 would see such a step as a tax increase. On the other hand, allowing a higher retirement age can be considered. Note that a higher retirement age in effect means a reduction in benefits. (We will need such a reduction, but we will need less the more revenue increases.)

This is precisely the kind of narrow attitude--I hesitate to call it thinking--that will lead us either to reform Social Security badly or to chuck any reform at all. This is pure ideology, with no consideration of practicality or fairness. Democrats are quite capable of spouting ideology-inspired nonsense on their side, of course. But to have Republican leadership nix any increase in taxes at all, even on people who are undeniably well off, is irresponsible. It suggests that the coming deficit in Social Security may well be reduced solely by a reduction in benefits. That does no one a favor.

We still do not know the specifics of the president's program. The Post article suggests, using Kremlinological-style analysis, that the president is more flexible than his Congressional colleagues. Nor do we know how wedded to that program the Congressional Republicans will allow themselves to be. Conflict among the elephants seems likely, which makes any outcome uncertain. (An African proverb seems apposite: "When elephants fight, the grass suffers.) It would be better if people on both sides of the issue--on both sides of the aisle, on both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue--would follow the promise of the president to "Keep everything on the table...." It would be better if they could cooperate with their ideological opponents in calm, with tolerance, to find a solution that served the public interest. But that might require compromise; purity will out, or so it seems.