It depends on what your definition of "new" is . . .

December 3, 1998

Today, yet another "new" coalition is being introduced to "protect Social Security." In fact, there's really nothing about this coalition that's "new."

The "New Century Alliance for Social Security" will be introduced by the Institute for America's Future and the Campaign for America's Future, which all sounds very progressive. Is it? Here are a few observations from Michael Tanner, director of Cato's Project on Social Security Privatization:

"This coalition is really the same old players advocating the same old ideas in the same old ways. One could call it 'deja vu all over again' squared.

"This 'new' coalition says it wants to 'strengthen, not dismantle, Social Security.' In reality, they would prop up a failed system by raising taxes and cutting benefits.

"The participants in this coalition are the same people who opposed welfare reform and promoted Hillarycare. They're the same people who've tinkered around the edges of Social Security for decades without addressing the program's fundamental problems. The inevitable result: Social Security taxes have been raised more than 1000 percent since the program's inception. Now they're lining up behind yet another tax hike and benefit cuts, such as raising the retirement age. The most appropriate name for this group would be 'The Castor Oil Coalition.'"

2001 Index | 2000 Index | 1999 Index | 1998 Index