Let's just call them spelunkers, ok?.... Repubs "cave in" to dem S.S. fairy tales.

What drives the pathological instinct in Republicans that makes them think they need to "cave in," thinking that something magical will happen that would make the democrats and MSM think favorably of them again?

Democrats swiftly accused Republicans of mounting a fresh attempt to privatize the Depression-era program. "This is privatization, plain and simple," said Rep. Sander Levin (search), D-Mich. "Just like President Bush's plan, this proposal would take money from Social Security to set up private accounts."

In a blow to the White House, Republicans said their measure will not contain any of the politically painful cost-cutting steps needed to ensure long-term solvency for Social Security — higher taxes, an increase in the retirement age or curbs in benefits.

Bush has made solvency and personal accounts financed from payroll taxes the twin goals of his call to overhaul the program. Despite an extensive nationwide campaign, he has failed to generate significant public support for his proposals.

Democrats are virtually united in their opposition and are preparing to use the issue in the 2006 midterm elections.

While Bush has called for using current payroll tax receipts to create a permanent new option for personal accounts, Republicans opted for a different approach.

And after weeks of bucking political headwinds, they said their proposal would strengthen Social Security. "It does stop the raid of the Social Security surplus," said Rep. Clay Shaw, R-Fla., echoing claims made by numerous Republicans.

Officials said that under the proposal, for an initial three-year period, surplus Social Security funds would be used to establish individual accounts for willing younger workers. The money would be in the form of "marketable Treasury bonds," according to a written description, with the interest rate set by the government.

Unlike current law, according to Rep. Jim McCrery, R-La., the effect would be to create a financial obligation to individual workers by name. He contrasted that to the current arrangement, which he described as the government promising, "We're going to pay you these (Social Security) benefits and we're going to get them from somewhere."

The GOP approach "effectively seals that money off for Social Security and just Social Security," he said.

Officials said that for the initial three-year period at least, the Treasury would continue to make use of the surplus Social Security funds to pay for other programs — just as it has for years.

The legislation will establish an advisory board to recommend changes to Congress to take effect after three years, officials said.

She said Democrats "stand ready to begin bipartisan discussions on protecting Social Security solvency, but this cannot begin until Republicans begin talking about ways to make Social Security stronger, not weaker."(pardon me while I gag again)

As you can tell from the logo half way down the bottom of this page, I am a big supporter of the Bush Social Security Plan. You know, the one that offers the option of investing part of your money into private accounts? As I have stated earlier, the issue to democrats has nothing to do with privatizing accounts, really. To wit:

President Clinton:

"[I]f You Don’t Do Anything, One Of Two Things Will Happen. Either It Will Go Broke And You Won’t Ever Get It, Or If We Wait Too Long To Fix It, The Burden On Society … Of Taking Care Of Our Generation’s Social Security Obligations Will Lower Your Income And Lower Your Ability To Take Care Of Your Children To A Degree That Most Of Us Who Are You Parents Think Would Be Horribly Wrong And Unfair To You And Unfair To The Future Prospects Of The United States.” (President Bill Clinton, Remarks At Georgetown University On Social Security, Washington, DC, 2/9/98)

And:

Harry Reid:

...told "Fox News Sunday" in 1999 that "most of us have no problem with taking a small amount of the Social Security proceeds and putting it in the private sector."
When asked whether people should be allowed to make those investment decisions rather than the government, Mr. Reid said, "I think it's important that we look, and I'm totally in favor of [doing] this. And, in fact, there are a couple of programs now that we're taking a look at to see if it will work with Social Security."

The issue to them is simply the fact that the idea is being implemented by a Republican administration. Social Security (as Fox News calls, a "depression era program") has always been a cause celebre among the democrats. If it is actually fixed, who will need democrats? As I have written before

If successful social security reform is enacted by a Republican president (and there is no doubt that privatization will outperform traditional s.s. by a wide margin), the DNC's collective gander is as cooked and eaten as a Thanksgiving dinner in an inner-city soup kitchen. Social security has been a political sacred cow and football that belonged solely to the DNC since the 1930s. The prospect of a "looming" crisis has always been near and dear to the heart of the DNC, much like a proverbial damsel in distress. The looming social security crisis was always there, like an old trusty shotgun, ready and willing to aim at wascally wepublicans and others who may be in their political crosshairs. Now along comes a REPUBLICAN who will finally actually RESCUE their fair damsel in their stead? Not if they can help it. For if social security is fixed, who will need the democrats?

The democrats have never been about fixing anything. They *need* crises. If crises are ameliorated, they have lost their 'raison d'etre' and another weapon they could otherwise use for scaring people into voting for them will be taken away. But taking the social security issue away from the democrats is not taking away just any old weapon.. It's taking away their MAIN weapon; their howitzer, and supplanting it with kryptonite. It will be much like throwing water on the wicked witch of the West... and the result will be the same
King makes some astute observations here

My whole point is, why don't the Republicans see this? When one is right, and is doing the right thing, why the incessant and pathological need to sink to the lowest common denominator? Do they actually think for one second that the dems and the MSM will all of a sudden like them and "be friends"? To wit:

Democrats argued that Republicans were making only a cosmetic change in Bush's proposal. "One approach would create risky private accounts directly from a worker's paycheck, and the other would finance risky private accounts from Social Security payroll taxes when they reached the federal Treasury," said House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi of California.

AND..

Democrats are virtually united in their opposition and are preparing to use the issue in the 2006 midterm elections.

AND..

Democrats swiftly accused Republicans of mounting a fresh attempt to privatize the Depression-era program. "This is privatization, plain and simple," said Rep. Sander Levin (search), D-Mich. "Just like President Bush's plan, this proposal would take money from Social Security to set up private accounts."

Just begs the question...How many more spelunking expeditions will we need to undergo before the Republicans finally grow a spine and act once again like the majority party?