A modest plan, part 2

As many have noted, proposals to cut Social Security and Medicare benefits even a percent or two, or to gradually raise the retirement age, are instantly shouted down by a howling mob of current or soon-to-be beneficiaries.

And that's completely understandable: When the Democrats came up with this program back when FDR was prez, they swore that it was NOT welfare but "insurance," because back then welfare was something people were fairly reluctant to accept.

Something about going against the idea of self-reliance and such.

Of course since then, everyone earning a living in the U.S. since then has been forced to pay into the system, so it's not surprising that they feel "all that money" they've paid in is really theirs. In that case, how dare congress even think about taking away something that's "theirs"?

Democrats seeking to block SS reforms have added to this perception by repeatedly claiming all the money paid in is in a "lockbox"--location unspecified. This reinforces the notion that each person has an account which uniquely belongs to them.

Of course anyone who understands basic math realizes that the average retiree gets back far more in checks than they paid in. But to most of the Dems' core--their base--basic math is a foreign concept. They don't understand it, so can't be educated about the reality of the SS ponzi scheme.

The net effect of all four points above is that it's impossible to convince the people who constitute the Dem base that Social Security is unsustainable at current levels of taxes, benefits and demographics.

Frankly, I don't think it's possible to reverse these four perceptions in "core" Democrats--and certainly not in people older than 40 or so. (Problem obviously isn't that it's impossible to learn beyond that age, but simply that it's extremely hard to reverse long-held misperceptions about *anything.*)

If core Dem voters will never agree to SS changes, I think the best chance of getting the Dems in congress to agree to reforms will be to be seen by a huge majority of voters as being willing to agree to cutting out tax "loopholes" (a.k.a. incentives) in exchange for Dems voting for small reductions in SS and Medicare. But there are two huge caveats here:

First, no Reagan/O'Neil shell games. For those under 40 or so, that was where Reagan ostensibly got Speaker Tip O'Neil and congressional Dems to agree to reduce spending by two dollars for every dollar in tax cuts. That would have enabled the gummint to cut taxes and still balance the budget (or very close).

But can you guess what happened? If you're over 30 I'll bet you can! The Dems voted for the Reagan tax cuts but refused to cut spending as they'd agreed. Result was a big deficit.

Point is, you can't trust 'em to do *anything* they promise. So the GOP must ensure that everything is in the same bill, or expect to be betrayed *again.*

Second caveat: House GOP reps should match loophole/incentive elimination with the Dems dollar for dollar. What that means is, draw up a list of liberal/Dem beneficiaries of tax breaks, and ensure that every tax break the Dems propose is matched by elimination of a break of similar size to a Democrat constituency.

This is a simple, straightforward winner of a talking point. When the bill comes to the Senate, all Republicans in both houses should constantly talk about the hypocrisy of Senate Dems in *saying* they want to eliminate loopholes/incentives, while actually fighting behind the scenes to *keep* loopholes for their own donors and voters.

Hypocrisy, hypocrisy, hypocrisy is a concept almost every voter understands, and it resonates extremely well even before now. Example: dozens of laws passed by congress that apply to everyone *except* themselves. Including Obamacare.

Get on this. Now.

That is all.