WASHINGTON —
In an
op-ed published today in The Washington Post, The Concord
Coalition’s Co-Chairs, former Senators Bob
Kerrey (D-NE) and Warren B. Rudman
(R-NH), warned against defaulting to the “do nothing” approach to Social
WASHINGTON —
In an
op-ed published today in The Washington Post, The Concord
Coalition’s Co-Chairs, former Senators Bob
Kerrey (D-NE) and Warren B. Rudman
(R-NH), warned against defaulting to the “do nothing” approach to Social
Security reform. Kerrey and Rudman urged critics of the few specific reform
plans that exist to come up with their own plans for shoring up the Social
Security system.
For the full
text of this
op-ed, follow this link:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A6698-2002Aug11.html
Excerpts from
the op-ed:
“Wall
Street’s slump and the disappearing budget surplus are already shaping this
year’s campaign rhetoric on Social Security reform. It’s easy to see why. These
events have taken two cherished free lunch options off the table. Politicians
can no longer claim that investment returns from a never-ending bull market or
general revenue transfers from perpetual budget surpluses will save them from
making hard choices.
“This
development should spark a more realistic debate on genuine reform options. But
there is a clear danger that without a free lunch to promise, politicians will
fall back on an equally bad option — the Do Nothing Plan. Voters shouldn’t let
that happen…
”Doing
nothing means deep benefit cuts or steep payroll tax increases for future
generations, which is why the Social Security Trustees continually warn that
prompt action is essential.
“Suppose that
a member of Congress introduced legislation called ‘The Social Security Do
Nothing Act.’ Under this bill, promised retirement benefits would be cut by 16
percent for today’s 30-year olds, by 29 percent for today’s 20-year olds, and by
35 percent for today’s newborns. Alternatively, payroll taxes would suddenly go
up by roughly 40 percent in 2041. How many politicians would rush to endorse
this bill? None. And yet these are the choices under the Do Nothing Plan…
.”It is
certainly fair to criticize reform plans on policy grounds. But it is
fundamentally unfair to judge them against a standard that assumes the current
system can deliver everything it promises. It can’t. Today’s Social Security
system promises far more in future benefits than it can possibly deliver. The
relevant comparison for any reform plan is with what current law can deliver,
not what it promises.
“No realistic
reform plan looks good when compared to the false hypothetical of a perfectly
solvent system. Reformers have the burden of saying what changes they would make
to a system that is very popular but unsustainable. Critics can sit back and
take pot shots at politically painful options without ever having to say what
they would do instead.
"We have a
simple suggestion to improve the dialogue. Critics…should come up with their
own plans for shoring-up Social Security. They should be specific about the
benefit cuts and tax increases they recommend and the amount of general revenues
that would be required. A real debate could then take place…
“We should
stop playing political shell games with this issue. If we do not have the
political will to solve the Social Security problem now, there is no hope of
doing so when the baby boomers start collecting benefits — not just for Social
Security but for Medicare and Medicaid as well. The problems facing our health
care programs are much more daunting and difficult than Social Security. These
three programs together are expected to double as a share of the economy within
30 years, putting unthinkable pressure on tax rates, the economy and the
budget…
“Politicians
of both parties should get behind specific reform plans or be held accountable
for supporting the consequences of the Do Nothing Plan.”
