"but has the party answered the basic question "should social security be reformed, and if yes, how ?".  What is the party's actual position on it, what's the plan ?  Is the party just going to stick with the idea that nothing is wrong with it and it doesn't need to be fixed, very few Americans seem to believe that."

The reason "very few Americans seem to believe that" is outlined in this article in the LA Times today with the rather plaintive title: They Invested Years in Private Accounts

The key grafs: "It is a tough sell to an uncertain public, but Bush has a secret weapon: A generation of free-market conservatives like Crane and Piñera has been laying the groundwork for this debate.

  "It could be many years before the conditions are such that a radical reform of Social Security is possible," wrote Stuart Butler and Peter Germanis, Heritage Foundation analysts, in a 1983 article in the Cato Journal. "But then, as Lenin well knew, to be a successful revolutionary, one must also be patient and consistently plan for real reform."

  Now, Bush is drawing on a deep reservoir of resources -- including policy research, ready-to-hire experts and polling on how to discuss the issue -- that conservatives have created over the last 20 years."

And it worked. Op-Ed writers bought it, gen X-ers bought in, even Clinton bought in and for the years up to around 1995 they had the numbers on their side. But the same economy that transformed "deficits as far as the eye can see" in 1992 to general fund surplus in 2000 transformed those numbers. Rhetoric that was workable in 1983, was persuasive in 1990 and still backed by numbers, has been outpaced by reality.

The Democratic Party has a plan, or will once we complete the sales job: Social Security as presently configured is fully funded and should be left alone while we take on the challenges of Medicare and medical costs generally.

We have the numbers. It isn't broke. And competing with the Republicans with plans to change the method of financing or raise the cap just risk alienating one party or another.

The dialogue has moved a tremendous amount on this topic since November, I know, I have the troll bruises to prove it. Influential bloggers who were dismissive are now champions, conventional wisdom across the top sites has fallen into line, because people like Jolly Buddah and me have the numbers and are not afraid to go for the kill on this one.

The story I linked to would draw at the heart strings of most Republican policy makers if they had hearts. They were that close to killing a program that they have hated since day one. But the same strong economy that they count on on every other front is their enemy here. Social Security is fine unless the economy falls into permanent economic stagnation (less than 1.9% growth forever)

Bush lied us into Iraq but in doing do lost 40 points of approval. He is starting at a much lower base and a much weaker case on Social Security and has the weight of WMDs hanging around his neck.

Social Security is not going broke, and I have the numbers to show that Bush is flat out lying when he says the problem is worsening each year EPI: Changes in Trustees projections over time

We are not going to go Bush-Lite on this one. We are going to channel our inner FDR and go right for their throats. BushCo is lying - again, and they will not get away with it.

Got Numbers?

No, if it does need some tinkering in 30 years, the Democratic Party, which created it against the Republican opposition, will solve the minor problem.

For now thought, it's fine as is, Republicans can apply for beginning another crisis someplace else.

What the party will look like in four years by opposing Bush's privatization plan is the governing party. What you seem to believe most Americans think about Social Security is not supported by polls.

When a Democratic president takes control of the White House in '08 we can take another look at the minor reforms needed to guarantee Social Security well into the next century.