Opinion Editorial | |
| Wednesday, November 25, 1998 | |
"Save Social Security" Is Easy For Clinton To Say |
One reason why Republicans in Congress have so frequently been snookered by Bill Clinton is that they never pin him down on his positions. This allows Clinton to appear to be in favor of nothing but positive alternatives to whatever problem is under discussion. In Clinton's world, there are never unpalatable alternatives, never any tough choices to be made that inevitably will alienate some voters. This puts Republicans into the position of "heavy" when they try to focus action on realistic policy options that inevitably have negative political consequences. A perfect example of this scenario is Social Security. Experts have known for years that sooner or later the system is going to have to be fixed. It needs to be fixed not because the system is collapsing or because anyone's benefits are threatened, but because increasingly it is a bad deal for younger workers. The generation of current and previous Social Security recipients got an enormous return on their taxes. They paid in almost nothing while receiving large benefits. By contrast, the Baby Boom generation will barely get back what they paid in and Generation X workers will not even get that. There is virtually a consensus among economists that some element of private saving needs to be introduced into the Social Security system. Modeled on the wildly popular 401(k) plan, workers would be allowed to put some portion of their Social Security taxes into such an account, investing it in the stock market or some other investment. This will simultaneously reduce the burden of the Social Security, which is the largest tax that most workers ever pay, restore confidence in the system and provide a higher rate of return. However, nothing will happen to anyone's benefits if no action is taken on Social Security reform. Social Security revenues and trust fund assets are adequate to ensure that all promised benefits can be paid for another 30 years. Yet Bill Clinton continually talks about "saving" Social Security as if there is some imminent threat to the benefits of current retirees, when in fact there is none. All such apocalyptic rhetoric does is instill unnecessary anxiety into retirees. But it is done so deliberately by Mr. Clinton in order to paint reformers as anti-Social Security and himself as its savior. Republicans let Clinton get the better of them in this debate by never forcing the issue. If Clinton were forced to put a specific plan to "save" Social Security on the table he would automatically lose the unchallenged high ground. That is because there are a limited number of options available. He would either have to propose higher taxes, lower benefits, or some private option. There really are no other possibilities. Thus Clinton would either have to alienate workers or retirees, or implicitly endorse the Republican option. By not forcing him to choose an approach, Republicans allow him to have his cake and eat it too, never having to bear any of the negative consequences of whatever course he chooses. Finally, at long last, Republicans seem to be awaking from their lethargy to realize Clinton has been making fools of them on Social Security. At an important hearing in the House Ways and Means Committee last week, Chairman Bill Archer (R-Texas) finally tried to pin the administration down on what its plan is to save Social Security. The witness, Assistant Secretary David Wilcox of the Treasury Department, however, refused all entreaties to pin the administration down on anything. It was really a cowardly, pathetic performance from an administration that so often has promised to lead America into the 21st century. Source: Bruce Bartlett, senior fellow, National Center for Policy Analysis, November 25, 1998. Home | Support Us | All Issues | Social Security Debate Central | Contact Us |