In the early 1980s, an aide to Democratic House Speaker Thomas Tip O'Neill declared Social Security to be the Rail of American Politics. Like the electrified rail used to power the trains of the Washington, D.C. Metro, anyone who touched Social Security would face likely (political) death. At the time, this aide was referencing President Ronald Reagan's failed attempt to reform Social Security in 1981. Yet a quarter-century later the adage still seems to apply. Upon his 2004 electoral victory, President George W. Bush declared that he had earned capital in the campaign, political capital, and now intend[ed] to spend Reforming Social Security, Bush explained, be a priority of my administration. But despite early favorable polls, a massive publicity campaign, Republican majorities in both houses, and strong ideological commitment to reform, President Bush failed to meet his goal. Over the course of 2005, public support for President Bush's plan (as well as for Bush himself) eroded considerably, and no Social Security bill even made it out of committee, let alone to the President's desk. Bush supporters and privatization advocates were clearly disappointed with the President's failure to reform Social Security; however it is my assessment that they should not have been surprised. In fact, Presidents Ford, Carter, Reagan, and Clinton have each seen some of their own reform efforts fail to materialize; and since 1935, there have only been two instances in which a reform involving any level of 'pain' was successful. Riding the Third Rail: The Politics of Social Security Reform in the Retrenchment Era will attempt to analyze Bush's inability to reform Social Security in a broader historical context. The paper will explore similar reform attempts that began under President Gerald Ford, after it became clear that the over-expansion of the U.S. Social Security system had stretched its obligations further than any anticipated revenue. More specifically, I will analyze the roles that elected politicians and issue network members have played in determining both the direction and success of reform attempts. After establishing a historical framework, I will offer a detailed analysis of the recent push to retrench Social Security under President Bush. I will also comment on what I believe to be the prospects for future reform in light of Social Security's history and the current political climate surrounding it. Ultimately, I intend to demonstrate that the nature of Social Security politics is competitive, dynamic, and complex, and that this complexity generally impedes good policy proposals from both sides of the political spectrum.