But politicians, in this case President Bush and his supporters, are intent on creating the impression of a crisis to spur the country into a discussion – and a choice – it would likely not make otherwise.
Like the supposed threat posed by Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction, which didn’t exist, or the threat of legalized same-sex marriage in Maine, smart politicians and their allies are manipulating public thought. They are creating a crisis where none exists with the intention of imposing an ideological solution that’s not necessary.
In a memo published by the Wall Street Journal and repeated in countless other places, the strategy for pushing privatization of Social Security is outlined. There’s a telling paragraph that illustrates the truth behind efforts to dismantle this program.
“For the first time in six decades, the Social Security battle is one we can win – and in doing so, we can help transform the political and philosophical landscape of the country. We have it within our grasp to move away from dependency on government and toward giving greater power and responsibility to individuals.”
Changing Social Security is not about fixing a funding problem that could occur in 2042, 2052 or beyond. It’s about undermining a successful government program, one that is hugely popular and effective, because it offends the ideological sensibilities of many conservatives who think the government has no business providing money to retired workers. As the memo makes clear, Social Security has been a target since it was created, and it remains one today.
There’s going to be a major public relations war fought over this. The Club for Growth, a conservative, anti-tax group, says it will spend $15 million to promote privatization. The AARP will counter with $5 million of its own to protect Social Security. And the president is expected to launch a campaign-style effort to convince America that Social Security is doomed.
Social Security does have a long-term problem. Without relatively minor changes in payroll taxes or benefits, the program will begin drawing down the Social Security Trust Fund and then be forced to reduce benefits to retirees sometime around 2050, depending on the country’s growth rate and gains in productivity. Even then, Social Security would still be able to pay about 70 percent to 80 percent of benefits.
President Bush proposes to solve this problem by allowing workers to drain as much as 4 percent of their wages – about 30 percent of their payroll deductions – away from Social Security and put it into private 401(k)-style accounts. He would have to borrow $2 trillion or more immediately to cover the transition, and benefits would be cut down the road by as much as 50 percent.
You can’t save a drowning man by throwing him an anchor; and you can’t save Social Security by dismantling it.
Many Republicans are on edge about the president’s plans for Social Security, and he’s only tossed out a few details without providing his complete plan.
Rep. Tom Cole, R-Okla., established the line of attack against anyone who opposes the president’s plans for Social Security in this quote from the Thursday’s Wall Street Journal.
“[The president] cannot afford to fail. It would have repercussions for the rest of his program, including foreign policy. We can’t hand the president a defeat on his major domestic initiative at a time of war.”
We don’t buy that line of thought. And we don’t buy privatization as an answer to the issues facing Social Security. You shouldn’t either.
In future editorials we will discuss the economic realities of Social Security and the myths associated with its health.
Comments are no longer available on this story