It is pretty well recognized that Bush already is backing off on aspects of his ideas about reforming Social Security. And Democrats also will cave on Social Security if the Republicans somehow agree to a combination of a payroll tax increase, changes in benefits and some kind of add on personal savings/investing accounts, according to the Washington bureau chief of the Denver Post, John Aloysius Farrel. He has been accused by the Rocky Mountain News and others of sticking to the Democrats’ party line. This column, however, seems to reflect some solid reporting and analysis. Here are the lede graphs of his Feb. 20, 2005, column:

It is pretty well recognized that Bush already is backing off on aspects of his ideas about reforming Social Security. And Democrats also will cave on Social Security if the Republicans somehow agree to a combination of a payroll tax increase, changes in benefits and some kind of add on personal savings/investing accounts, according to the Washington bureau chief of the Denver Post, John Aloysius Farrel. He has been accused by the Rocky Mountain News and others of sticking to the Democrats’ party line. This column, however, seems to reflect some solid reporting and analysis. Here are the lede graphs of his Feb. 20, 2005, column:

President Bush’s effort to reform the Social Security system will succeed. Personal retirement accounts will be part of the fix. And Democrats will make it happen.

Don’t expect it overnight. The Democrats are holding their own in the initial skirmishing over Social Security and, at the moment, have far less reason than the president to negotiate with themselves.

Without budging an inch, they’ve gotten Bush to come out for painful benefit cuts and to fudge on his vow of no new taxes. His approval rating on Social Security is heading south in the polls. Republicans on Capitol Hill are spooked, dreading the day when the Congressional Budget Office analyzes the as-yet-hidden specifics of a White House reform plan, and voters discover the price they’ll be asked to pay.

The Democrats, in fact, have been so successful that a sizable number now believe their return to power runs through the kind of ruthless obstructionism that Newt Gingrich and Bob Dole practiced during Bill Clinton’s administration.

Republicans refused to give Clinton a single vote when he raised taxes to close the federal budget deficits in 1993, then sandbagged him on health care, capturing Congress in 1994. Turnabout, say many Democrats, is fair play.

But Social Security is different.

Gingrich and Dole could afford to gamble. Win or lose, the GOP base suffered little under Clinton economics.

But if the Democrats stand for anyone, it is for the very Americans who will groan if Social Security is not fixed: the aged and poor, African-Americans, working families, Hispanics, young voters and single women.

Throw in a few limousine liberals, and that’s the Democratic base. Democrats note that, if Congress does nothing, the Social Security system will still pay 70 percent of promised benefits. But they’re not stupid. It’s the Democratic constituencies, not wealthy Republican retirees in gated communities in Scottsdale and Hilton Head, who will miss that 30 percent.

Less than a third of white Americans rely on Social Security for 90 percent or more of their retirement income, according to the Social Security Administration. African-Americans and Hispanics don’t have the pension coverage or investment portfolios of their white counterparts: Almost half of these minority retirees rely on Social Security for 90 percent of their income.

For working-class families, Social Security’s progressive benefit formula is a good deal. Low earners receive a higher proportion of their pre-retirement earnings from the system than do their wealthier counterparts and more often rely upon the disability and survivor benefits.