"What they're afraid of is that they'd embrace a particular idea and the other side will demagogue the hell out of it," said Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), who has introduced legislation to create private accounts based largely on the recommendations of a commission appointed in 2001 by Bush. Graham is working closely with the White House on the issue.
The decision to stick to generalities also reflects the political complexities facing Bush as he tries to outline a domestic agenda for a second four years in office. Towering budget deficits resulting in part from his tax cuts have given him little room to maneuver. And what critics see as his confrontational leadership style has fostered implacable hostility among Capitol Hill Democrats, whose support would be critical for anything as substantive as changing Social Security.
Some Republicans are hesitant to act on Social Security because of poll data showing that seniors have been unhappy with Medicare's new prescription drug benefit and have responded to Democrats' charge that the legislation was more of a boon for pharmaceutical companies than beneficiaries.
"The [GOP] leadership gets very nervous about what happens in the marginal [House] districts" when Democrats focus their attacks on Republican stewardship of Social Security and Medicare, said Michael Tanner, director of health and welfare studies at the Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank.
Still, advocates of partial privatization said that presented in the right way on the campaign trail, the plan could appeal to younger voters who worried they would never reap the rewards of the taxes they paid into Social Security.
The advocates said that talking about the proposal in general terms would allow Bush to claim a mandate for change if he won in November.
But Rep. Robert T. Matsui of Sacramento, the ranking Democrat on the House committee that oversees Social Security funding, said he couldn't foresee his colleagues going along with Bush on creating private accounts, especially if the president did not address the tough questions surrounding it.
"He has an obligation to put down a plan," Matsui said. "To talk about it conceptually is meaningless. We all want to solve the problem and maintain benefits and not increase payroll taxes and make everybody happy. But he can't just say that and expect to get a mandate out of it."
