Memo to George W. Bush: Social Security is a Winning Issue
September 18, 2000
by Michael Tanner
Conventional wisdom has long maintained that Vice President Al Gore wants
the presidential campaign to focus on issues, while Texas Gov. George W. Bush
prefers to campaign on character. But with Gore now leading in most polls, it
is time to stand conventional wisdom on its ear. If George W. Bush wants to
revive his struggling presidential campaign, he should make this a campaign
about issues, and one issue in particular -- Social Security.
Social Security has traditionally been a Democratic strong suit but not this
year. Whereas polls in the past showed Democrats with a 20-point (or more) advantage
on the question of which party would best handle Social Security, now the parties
are running close to even. More important, when voters are asked whether they
support Bush's proposal to allow workers to divert a portion of their Social
Security taxes to individually owned, privately invested accounts, they strongly
endorse the proposal. In the latest Washington Post-ABC News Poll, 59 percent
of voters supported the Bush proposal; 37 percent were opposed. Vital swing
voters are even more supportive of individual accounts. According to a Zogby
International poll, 72 percent of independent voters support individual accounts.
By supporting Social security privatization, Bush can seize a popular issue
and put Gore on the defensive. It was Bill Clinton who best explained the options
available to fix Social Security. There are only three: raise taxes, cut benefits,
or increase the rate of return by investing Social Security funds. Clinton proposed
to do the latter by allowing the government to invest a portion of the Social
Security Trust Fund, a dangerous idea that has wisely not seen the light of
day. George Bush proposes to do it by allowing workers to invest for themselves.
Al Gore rejects both approaches, opposing any investment of Social Security
funds. With investment and higher returns off the table, that leaves Gore with
only two alternatives; either he raises taxes or cuts benefits. Bush should
simply turn to Gore in debate and ask him which of those he plans to do.
It's important to understand as well that Gore's complicated proposal to use
the budget surplus to pay off the national debt and then credit the Social Security
Trust Fund with the interest savings is little more than an accounting trick
that does absolutely nothing to fix Social Security. While paying down the debt
may or may not be a good use of the surplus, Gore's proposal does not extend
the life of the program by one day, reduce its long-term deficit by one dollar,
or increase its rate of return by one percent.
Don't take my word for it. The Congressional Budget Office looked at the key
elements of Gore's proposal and concluded, "merely changing the bookkeeping
for the Social Security Trust Funds may only make us feel better at the expense
of our kids." The General Accounting Office agreed, stating that Gore's proposal
"does not represent a Social security reform plan and does not come close to
'saving Social Security."
Social Security is an issue where George Bush can steal Al Gore's populist
rhetoric. After all, it is not the rich who need Social Security privatization.
They already have plenty of opportunities to invest, while the poor do not.
The result is a growing wealth gap in American society. The richest 1 percent
of Americans own nearly half of all the wealth in America. But Social Security
privatization would give all Americans the opportunity to save, invest and accumulate
wealth. That is why prominent Democrats such as Sens. Bob Kerrey and Daniel
Patrick Moynihan support privatization. But not Al Gore. On this issue, Gore
has clearly sided against working men and women.
Finally, Social Security provides a clear opportunity for Bush to define the
fundamental difference between him and Gore. Al Gore trusts the government;
Bush trusts the people. Gore essentially says that Americans cannot be trusted
with their own money. Bush would give Americans more control over—and ownership
of—their retirement funds.
It's time to really debate the future of Social Security. George W. Bush should
lead that debate. It wouldn't just be good policy—it would be good politics.
Michael Tanner is director of health and welfare studies for the Cato Institute.
2001 Index | 2000
Index | 1999 Index | 1998
Index
|
