|
The Washington
Times President Bush
conceded Tuesday what has long been obvious, indeed, predicted by some
of the staunchest personal account advocates. His Social Security reform
efforts have stalled out. Personal accounts for Social Security, however,
are still alive and kicking on the Hill, and can still pass within the
next few months. Mr. Bush to me
is a brave and endearing figure of high character, who has been poorly
served by others on many fronts. That is the case in his Social Security
reform failure too. The president campaigned
in and won two national elections on the still highly popular personal
account option for Social Security. He did not talk then about cutting
future promised benefits sharply through price indexing of the benefit
formula, or delaying the retirement age, or raising taxes by increasing
the maximum cap on Social Security taxable income. Instead, he rightly
talked about the new opportunity and prosperity personal accounts would
bring to working people. And in 2000, 2002 and 2004, dozens of Republicans
won congressional elections following him in this position. But once he got
to Washington, his staff was intellectually dominated by the old-line
policy establishment desperate to get Mr. Bush away from the truly revolutionary
accounts and back into the old box of tax increases and cuts in future
promised benefits. Despite the president's better instincts, his staff
misled him back into this swamp of failure. There is a true
scandal here as the staff sold the president the canard Democrats would
support personal accounts in return for his support of price-indexing
Social Security benefits, which would hugely reduce future benefits
promised under current law. As should have been expected, the Democrats
have uniformly opposed such price indexing. The idea the Democrats
were pining away for huge cuts in future Social Security benefits was
absurd from the beginning. The staff's price indexing debacle was the
equivalent to suggesting the president could get Democrats to support
sweeping tax cuts if he would only embrace cutting food stamps and public
housing. Earlier this year,
the president was even sent out to argue for personal accounts, while
ridiculously mouthing the proposition the accounts would not solve Social
Security's problems. To address long-term solvency, the president put
"on the table" large reductions in future promised benefits,
delayed retirement age -- and even tax increases. The staff had sold
the president another scandalous canard here as the chief actuary of
Social Security, a nonpartisan career bureaucrat who knows the numbers
better than anyone, scored several personal account proposals as completely
eliminating the long-term deficits of Social Security without tax increases
or benefit cuts. That resulted because the personal accounts were designed
to take over far more responsibility to pay future promised Social Security
benefits than they took in payroll tax revenues, leaving the system
in permanent surplus. Polls reveal the
utter failure of the administration's campaign for personal accounts.
Surveys consistently show support for personal accounts at 50 percent
or more. But when the public is asked about "the president's plan,"
support falls by half. Those surpluses
would instead start small personal accounts for each worker, which would
take over a proportionate responsibility to pay future Social Security
benefits. Over time, the
personal accounts can be expanded, which would increase future benefits
rather than cut them because of the accounts' higher market returns.
Moreover, as the expanded personal accounts take over paying more and
more future Social Security benefits, Social Security deficits would
eventually be eliminated, achieving full solvency. This proposal is
political dynamite because it combines the extremely popular idea of
ending the raid on the Social Security trust funds with the still quite
popular personal accounts, without any tax increases or benefit cuts.
Only by going to the people with such a populist proposal that clearly
benefits workers can Republicans hope to overcome reactionary, Neanderthal,
Democrat opposition to Social Security reform. Copyright © 1999 - 2005 News World Communications, Inc. |