Yesterday the Senate voted on a series of resolutions concerning Social Security. I guess they’re warming up to the idea of actually legislating on the subject. The headline news was the 50-50 split on Florida Democrat Bill Nelson’s resolution declaring that it was the sense of the Senate that no Social Security plan should involve “deep benefit cuts or a massive increase in debt.” Five Republicans voted for the resolution. It seems to me that they all should have done so. Senate Republican sources told me they objected to the way the language seemed to push in the direction of tax increases as the only solution for Social Security. But wouldn’t it have been better to vote for the resolution and explain that none of the conservative plans, properly viewed, involve deep benefit cuts or massive debt increases? Going on record for massive debt and deep benefit cuts strikes me as a political mistake.

The split also obscured the fate of some other resolutions. Republican Lindsey Graham got all 100 senators to agree to work together to ensure the program’s permanent solvency and to reduce its cost. Jim DeMint, the other Republican from South Carolina, got 56 senators–all the Republicans but Snowe and Voinovich, plus Democrats Bill Nelson, Ben Nelson of Nebraska, and Robert Byrd of West Virginia–to agree that not doing anything would generate major tax hikes, debt increases, or spending cuts.