Despite growing concerns over the future of social security, Democrats have been slow to offer viable counter proposals to President Bush’s plan for Social Security reform. They have been unable to convince the American public that some form of Social Security reform is not necessary. Many Democrats, however, claim that there is no reason to offer a solution or response because the Bush administration has not offered a coherent policy and that there is no reason to stir up a response to, in Sen. Ted Kennedy’s words, a “nonexistent” problem. Politics, however, operates much like a bandwagon market; ideas that are presented to Congress and the public first have the ability to become the dominant view, even if they are not the best or correct ones. Democrats should recognize that the longer they wait to take action, the more difficult it will be to convince the public that they either have a better plan to fix Social Security or that a plan is not needed because Social Security is stable. If Democrats are serious about Social Security, they need to become more vocal and present solutions, rather than simply offer sound bytes regarding President Bush’s plan.
Proving that Social Security does not need major alterations might prove more difficult than offering counter proposals to President Bush’s plan. Virtually all Democrats and Republicans recognize that by 2042 the system will be facing serious solvency issues. 2042 is a great number of years into the future. However, that does not mean the problem can simply be postponed. How have members of Congress responded to this situation? Rep. Rob Simmons, R-Conn., responded by saying “When does the program go belly up? 2042. I will be dead by then.” Sen. Byron Dorgan, D-N.D., states, “There is not a crisis in Social Security.” A system that was designed to exist in perpetuity now has an end date if no action is taken. How is this not a crisis, or at the very least a problem that should be addressed by Congress now? Given the size of the Social Security system, even “modest adjustments” made now will have a trillion dollar effect on the system in the future. It would be nice if Congress would just acknowledge that Social Security is facing serious difficulties. But don’t hold your breath. Social Security is part of the “third rail” of American politics and justly so. Who wants to disrupt a system that has provided benefits for over 70 years to the economically disadvantaged, minorities and women?
What are some of the counter proposals to President Bush’s plan? Most are tantamount to political suicide. You don’t win elections by increasing taxes, decreasing benefits, or raising the retirement age. Increase taxes? Although the Brookings Institute released a plan in 2003 which included the idea of raising Social Security taxes incrementally 0.2 percent every 10 years, it seems unlikely that Congress would vote on fixed tax increases for the next 40 plus years. Additionally, there have been over 20 tax increases for Social Security in the past 40 years and the problem of solvency still exists. Decrease current benefits? Virtually all of Congress and most of society opposes this plan. Increase the retirement age? This would not solve the problem; it would simply postpone the problem for a few more years. Additionally, it would have to be coupled with either decreased benefits or higher taxes to have any sort of impact.
So, where does this leave us? There are very few political options left open for Democrats who refuse to accept the idea of personal retirement accounts as a solution. Democrats need to at the very least adopt some type of position rather than simply oppose all of the President’s proposals. Although President Bush’s plan has not been finalized, the fact that Democrats have begun to attack the rationale behind the plan is disturbing. Social Security should not be a partisan issue; it is not as though Democrats want to keep Social Security simply because it was their idea. Republicans don’t want Social Security dead because they hate the poor or minorities. Paul Krugman’s assessment in The New York Times that “Social Security is a government program that works, a demonstration that a modest amount of taxing and spending can make people’s lives better and more secure…And that’s why the right wants to destroy,” is particularly disturbing. Republicans are not trying to “destroy” Social Security; they are simply offering a plan to reform a broken system, which is more than Democrats have done thus far.
Leave a Reply