From the Associated Press, “GAO Official: No Crisis in Social Security“:

Social Security “does not face an immediate crisis,” the head of the Government Accountability Office said Wednesday, but it does face a long-term financing problem “and it would be prudent to address it sooner rather than later.”

Prudent. Prudent, eh? Wait, wait, that means we should do something? A few paragraphs later:

In his opening statement, Rangel declared, “Private accounts will not be on the table if you are looking for bipartisanship.”

Sorry, Chuck, but “bipartisanship” sometimes has to take a backseat to “a solution.”

It seems the leading Democrats have two responses to the conclusion that Social Security is in need of reform:

1) Nu-uh!
2) mumblemumble…Minor adjustments…mumbletaxincrease…

If the issue is bipartisanship, let’s hear some constructive alternatives. “Chimpy is trying to bankrupt the old folks!” or “There’s not a problem, he’s a liar! No social security reform for oil!” or, if you ask Howard Dean, a simple “YEEEAARGH!!!!” seem to sum up the vibe from the People’s Voice of the Left. I guess the President should have known better than to suggest something psychotic like (*gasp!*) private accounts. Cause we’ve seen what a horrific fiery disaster has resulted from the… what, 1983?… implementation of the Thrift Savings Plan for Federal employees.

For an old, interesting, and sort of repetitive but overall good look at Social Security reform, read this 1998 article from the Senate Republican Policy Committee. Keep in mind, Bush made up this whole problem, and Social Security will be fine. With a small tax increase. It’ll be small, we promise.