The latest effort to breathe new life into bankrupt federal entitlements is apparently dead, and Democrats are blaming Republicans for the collapsed negotiations. What a surprise.

Barely two years ago, when President Bush used his re-election political capital to press for Social Security reform, Democrats sabotaged his proposal to give younger Americans the option of investing a portion of their payroll taxes. They frightened senior citizens who depend on Social Security checks into thinking benefits would be reduced, then had the audacity to pin the resulting panic on the president himself.

That row made the issue a political non-starter until the 2006 elections. Throughout that campaign, Democratic candidates said they would be more than willing to address the coming collapse of Social Security and Medicare, provided President Bush and Republicans keep partial privatization off the negotiating table.

When Democrats swept to power in Congress, the White House quietly helped establish a bipartisan working group to address entitlement insolvency. Among the ground rules agreed to by the Bush administration and members of Congress: formal recommendations required three-fourths support from the body.

Keep in mind, Democrats have stuck to their ultimatum regarding partial privatization. They maintain that younger Americans absolutely must not be allowed to put a small share of their earnings in a private investment account.

So last month, in an interview with "Fox News Sunday," Vice President Dick Cheney let slip the Bush administration's own condition in entitlement talks: no payroll tax increases.

Democrats, predictably, were apoplectic. During a Wednesday hearing, Senate Budget Committee Chairman Kent Conrad, D-N.D., skewered White House Budget Director Rob Portman for refusing to see the light and admit that tax increases should be part of any plan to fortify entitlements. Sen. Conrad said the Bush administration was acting in bad faith.

"We have an opportunity here to work together, but the only way I know in human relations for there to be resolution between parties who have different views is for both sides to compromise," Sen. Conrad said. "Unfortunately I see virtually none on your side. And I regret that more than I can say."

Then Sen. Conrad took his ball and went home. He ended the hearing and left the building.

So, to review, Democrats now have two ultimatums related to entitlement reform: payroll tax increases and a prohibition on private investment. Republicans, meanwhile, are not allowed to have even one.

This spat is further proof that, for Democrats everywhere, "bipartisanship" and "compromise" are code for "our way or the highway."

By the Social Security Administration's own estimate, the program will exhaust its reserves by 2040. Its obligations will exceed its collections by 2017. The prognosis for Medicare is much worse. The health care program for seniors is already paying out more in claims than its taxes bring in, and its reserves will be depleted by 2018. Federal entitlements currently have more than $46 trillion in outstanding liabilities.

The time for urgency was 20 years ago. Perhaps if the Department of Homeland Security attached a "red" threat level to entitlement programs, elected officials might finally take steps to institute the broad changes necessary to keep these programs viable in the decades ahead.

Each day that passes with no action on entitlement reform moves this country's younger citizens closer to not only benefit reductions, but the likelihood that they won't receive any benefits at all in old age.

Said Sen. Judd Gregg, R-N.H.: "People on the other side are more interested in the next election than the next generation."