more "compromise"???

From TalkingPointsMemo we get the following news:

In Business Week, Howard Gleckman reports that behind the scenes Republicans and Democrats are moving toward a compromise on Social Security. I'd say this has a great deal to do with which Democrats and which Republicans he's talking to. But, as you'll see in the article, which I highly recommend you read, he seems to be painting a picture in which carved out private accounts are tossed, the cap is raised, though not removed, and various benefit cuts are imposed.

I think that making a deal on Social Security is a loser for the Dems no matter how good and responsible they are about the terms of the deal. They are going to hand Bush and the Reps a chance to crow about how they 'fixed' Social Security and with that any advantage that they might have had for the 2006 elections.

If they don't cut a 'deal' they'll be able to campaign on the promise of a responsible fix and demonize the Reps' plans to take apart Social Security. The failure of Bush's efforts to convince the country to do the 'reform' his way is a gift that the Dems should not pass up.

This is not about severe partisanship (Bush's loss is their gain), but rather pragmatism (divided Repubs = chance to take back the House/Senate). Cutting a deal on filibusters was good for the Senate. Cutting a deal on Social Security, well, that's really only going to benefit the ruling party.