It is no secret now that President Bush is making the reform of Social Security one of his top priorities for his second term.  It is also no secret that the AARP and Congressional Democrats think opposing reform is a winning issue for them.  Congressional Republicans,  all in safe seats, are responding to  the problem with the "courage" and "moral fortitude"  they have displayed on the illegal immigration and federal spending issues (none)  and are bailing out right and left.  As the formerly courageous Georgia Rep. Jack Kingston has made clear, the Republicans don't want to "lose their majority" over the issue.

Is he an idiot?

What good IS HAVING a majority unless important issues are tackled?  If this Congress doesn't step up on the Social Security issue the Republicans SHOULD lose their majority.  Frankly, its not hard to be sick of all of their lame excuse s on a variety of "tough" issues.  Lead, follow, or get out of the way.

Winning the Social Security debate can be done on semantics the Democrats have  claimed for themselves for years.  The key  concepts are simple:   Privacy, Fairness, Ending Discrimination, Choice and Soaking the Rich.   If we frame the debate around these words and concepts,  the debate can be won.  If not, the news media and Democrats will keep a bankrupt system bankrupt.  So how should we explain Social Security reform?

Privacy - What could be more private than allowing a citizen to create his or her own private investment account?  Democrats advocate privacy rights all the time , even to the point of creating an imaginary loss of "privacy" rights in the federal government's war on terrorists.   This  concept should be easy for them to understand.   The proposal is simple:  The employee creates their private account and funds it with the 6. 20% Social Security being withheld from their paycheck right now.  The funds can legally be used for no other purpose than a retirement account.  The EMPLOYER contribution of 6. 20% continues to go to the federal government to pay benefits to current recipients.  The employee understands that he or she will ever get any of the employer share for themselves , but will achieve a rate of return on their private account up to ten times that of what is being offered by the "rate of return" in Social Security.

Fairness - Right now all the surpluses in the Social Security Trust Fund are being stolen  ("borrowed without a repayment plan")  by Congress to fund general government operations.  This practice began under LBJ and continues as an embarrassment to both political parties.  The practice must be ended NOW.  It is unfair for Social Security funds to be used for the war in Iraq, welfare, health care or highways.  For fundamental, basic fairness, Congress needs to quit stealing this money.  Democrats support fairness.  They should support this change in federal government policy.  Republicans will squirm if the Democrats do this.

Ending Discrimination - Presently, on all private 401 (k) plans or 403 (b) plans, the amount an employee can save for retirement is limited by federal law.  There is actually a cap on what a person can defer into a retirement account!  Besides being incredibly stupid, this is discriminatory practice against those that want to prepare for their futures without Social Security.  For business owners or highly compensated employees, the amount they can defer is actually tied to a percentage of what the other employees contribute.  Absolute discrimination.  As it is a closely held value by Democrats that all discrimination must end immediately, this practice of discrimination against those that wish to save more must end immediately.   Take the caps off!  Let all employees save whatever they want.

Choice - We all know that most Democrats and some Republicans are pro - choice.  For a private citizen to be able to choose what to do with his own money must at least be on par with he or she being able to choose what they want with their own bodies!  To be consistent, any Social Security reform must have plenty of choices for private accounts.  How could a Democrat vote against this?  How could a Republican not win every argument about this subject?  Choice must be a central theme of the Social Security debate.

Soaking the Rich - This  a favorite  desire or most Democrat  legislators.  Let's join with them and do it.  This reform is a  cornerstone of any reform  plan  for  Social Security.  Here is how it works:  Any Social Security eligible  senior  citizen and his/her spouse with retirement income in excess of $100,000 per year can only draw out of Social Security what they actually contributed, plus interest!  This is radical and soaks the rich too!  The  crown jewel of this plan is how to treat senior citizens with  retirement incomes  over $200,000 - they are simply ineligible for Social Security benefits!  Warren Buffet, Ross Perot, and all the the other Seniors who don't need Social Security will simply not receive it. Democrats will love this one.   It soaks the rich and leaves more money in the program for private accounts, thus expanding privacy and choice.  But is does discriminate.  Since it discriminates against the "rich", it passes the test with Congressional Democrats.

The end result of implementing these changes is that Social Security will be saved, people will have private accounts with many investment choices, Congress will no longer be stealing money out of the trust fund, and wealthy individuals who don't need Social Security will no longer receive it.  The hardest part for Congress will be balancing the budget without stealing the Social Security surplus.  For that reason, and that reason alone, no substantive reform is likely to happen.  Republicans deserve to lose their majority in Congress if they fail to lead on this issue and solve the problem once and for all.  President Bush is certainly leading on Social Security reform and he is deserving of our enthusiastic support.   Lead, follow, or get out of the way.  The President is leading.