Recently, several members of Congress traveled over to the Franklin D. Roosevelt Memorial to demonstrate their opposition to the president’s efforts to reform Social Security. What they either didn’t realize or chose to ignore is that President Roosevelt, whose memorial they chose to visit, was also in favor of provisions similar to what President Bush is now asking for.

In a written statement to Congress in 1935, Roosevelt said that any Social Security plans should include “Voluntary contributory annuities, by which individual initiative can increase the annual amounts received in old age,” adding that government funding “ought to ultimately be supplanted by self-supporting annuity plans.”

In 1999, Harry Reid, the new Senate minority leader, expressed his willingness to support such reforms when proposed by President Clinton. “Most of us have no problem with taking a small amount of the Social Security proceeds and putting it into the private sector.” Now he considers the same proposal to be a “gamble.” And now, when President Bush expresses his concerns for the future of the program, these same people meet those concerns with boos and sneers.

My question: Is it the message about Social Security that these politicians don’t like, or is their opposition based on their dislike for the messenger?

Matt Mower, Lewiston

Copy the Story Link