On the WashPost editorial page today ... A Deal on Social Security:

The average couple retiring today can expect to receive 3 1/2 times more in inflation-adjusted federal benefits than was the case in 1960, and the growth is set to continue. Surely not all this expansion is essential .... Should government really be taxing young families with mortgages and children to subsidize seniors who don't need the money?

That's a rhetorical question right? The kind that doesn't need any serious debate because the answer is so blindingly obvious.

In a nutshell the editorial prescribes Bush punting on personal accounts and the Democrats getting real on reform.

Both Mr. Bush and the Democrats should see political advantage in solvency reform, however intense the reaction from the seniors lobby. For Mr. Bush, a success on entitlement reform might save his administration from going down as the worst budget steward in memory. For the Democrats, reform would infuse their message with new credibility .... If Democrats want to push (programs like expanded healthcare benefits), they must grapple with entitlements to make space in the federal budget.

What are the odds?

  ¶ 10:21 PM