It’s not clear. He authorized Robert Bennett of Utah to proceed with a Social Security package in the Senate that does not include accounts – yet. The House Bill still has private accounts in the package (ignore the title on this AP[ropganda] piece) so there is always the reconciliation conference to put them back in. Or, he could be getting the dems on record for all the other elements and letting them take the political punishment from the younger voters (key democrat constituents and supporters of private accounts) for blocking the accounts.

The core part of the plan I am interested in seeing passed is the Feldstein progressive indexing of benefits. This approach ramps up benefit increases for the truly needy and slows down the benefit increases for the really rich – who can argue with that? I am a conservative, but I see no reason for my taxes (read that as money I could be spending on my family now) should go to people whose retirement income is more than I make working my tail off.

I think the Washington Post has it half right (they gloat on the supposed demise of private accounts, like all elites).

THE DEMOCRATS are positively giddy over their success in foiling President Bush’s Social Security plan. As a political matter, perhaps they have reason to cheer: Polls show Americans dubious about his proposed changes, and the president appears suddenly open to solutions that do not include his signature personal accounts.
…
But after the confetti settles, Democrats need to ask themselves: Now what? Having beaten back private accounts, as it appears they have, is it enough to keep sticking their fingers in their ears while saying “no”?
…
The only Democratic proposal on the table, from Rep. Robert Wexler of Florida, is a lopsided measure that would address Social Security solvency solely by raising taxes. Responsible proposals from Democratic economists that would blend benefit cuts and tax increases have gotten nowhere with Democratic lawmakers.
…
No doubt Democrats’ political instincts will be against engaging at this point: Why bail out Mr. Bush now, the strategists will argue, and let him claim that he led the way to putting Social Security on the path to solvency? Why endorse spinach when it’s so much more fun — and politically useful — to point out the spinach in the other side’s plan?
…
But there is also the little matter of what’s right for the country. Failing to act now will make the problem harder to fix down the road; cuts or tax increases will have to be steeper the longer the problem goes unaddressed. Yes, Medicare is a bigger, thornier problem, but that’s a reason to get Social Security done, not to ignore the issue and let it fester.

Democratic lawmakers keep insisting that they take the Social Security problem seriously and want to deal with it. This seems a good time to start.

The democrats are looking like obstructionists with no plan – except the plan to try and gain political points while SS goes bankrupt. Even to the Washington Post. But they are kidding themselves if they think the republicans are not seen as leading on this issue. That horse has already left the barn.