Social Security debate treading water

For many years editorial writers and other professional worrywarts have clamored for a national debate on Social Security. Now we’ve got one, but it stinks.

Republicans and Democrats, along with their respective allies, share the blame. They have left a frustrated public adrift in a sea of misinformation, dubious logic and misleading rhetoric.

Let’s consider the sins – well, some of the sins – on each side. First, the Republicans:

President Bush is not focusing on the most urgent problem.

Social Security will face a cash crunch in a dozen years or so. At that point the government will need to start coming up with extra money from somewhere to “repay” the trust funds and keep the benefit checks flowing to retirees.

Bush deserves credit for at least occasionally pointing this out. Unfortunately, however, that’s not the problem he’s trying to fix. Some of his suggestions, in fact, would actually aggravate it.

Bush has focused largely on some far more distant and theoretical problems with Social Security.

This has plunged Washington and the country into deep discussions over appropriate retirement benefits for people who haven’t even started working yet. But we can’t solve Social Security’s longer-term problems until we’ve fixed the one that’s only a few years away.

Bush has not clearly stated what he wants Congress to do.

In a news conference last week, Bush appeared to embrace a benefit-cutting plan that has been developed by Robert Pozen, an investment company executive. It remains unclear, however, how closely the president wants to follow this plan – and what else he wants done.

Many questions remain even about the private accounts plan that Bush says Congress must include in any Social Security revamp.

Bush presents this timidity in the guise of flexibility, saying he’s open to additional suggestions from Congress – except for certain suggestions he doesn’t like. And Bush has even left people confused about what he’s ruling out.

Administration officials have seriously misled the public about both how Social Security operates and how certain “reform” proposals would work.

The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, for example, has compiled a list of Bush statements from last week’s press conference that were either misleading or wrong.

The current system pays survivor benefits to the spouses and children of deceased workers. Bush indicated, however, that they would receive only a small burial benefit: “Somebody has worked all their life, the money they pay into the system just goes away.”

Bush’s numbers also appear to assume cuts in payments to disabled workers even though Bush says he wants no change in disability benefits.

Want more examples? See the center’s Web site at www.cbpp.org.

OK, what about the Democrats and their allies?

Many deny that Social Security faces any serious problems at all.

In some cases this just reflects ignorance. In others, there is an astounding willingness to believe that all the trustees’ reports and blue-ribbon panels that expressed deep concern about the system – many dating to well before this administration – were delusional.

Rather than acknowledging that some painful choices will have to be made and offering their own proposals, many Democratic lawmakers are just sitting back to watch Bush take the heat.

Some defenders of the status quo are even wailing about proposed benefits cuts to the wealthy and the upper middle-class. This may seem like a strange position for Democrats. But they argue that if people with high incomes don’t continue to receive large Social Security checks, political support for the whole program will drop.

But at least some reductions in Social Security will have to be made eventually. If we can’t start with cuts for the rich, where can we start?

Democrats in Congress say they won’t negotiate until Bush abandons the idea of private accounts.

There are some legitimate concerns about private accounts, but they hardly deserve to be treated as beyond discussion – particularly after Bush won re-election while talking about them. By making any negotiations contingent on Bush abandoning his favorite idea, the Democrats appear determined to block any forward movement.

Both sides in the debate need to rethink some of their claims and tactics if there is to be any hope of progress on Social Security this year. And after years of procrastination in Washington, we desperately need some progress.