Finally, some sane talk from liberals about Social Security. Garance Franke-Ruta writes that the proposed Dem strategy of saying that there is no crisis will not work since Democrats have been talking about fixing Social Security for nearly two decades. (Remember Paul Tsongas?) She also adds that calling the President and privatization supporters liars isn't an effective strategy.
" 'But he's lying!" may be a common Democratic complaint about the president, but it's not a rhetorical or political strategy. Nor, as we saw on Nov. 2, is it a particularly effective charge."
Amen. Calling someone a liar is not going to garner you votes. If the Dems want to score some points in this battle they will have to offer some solutions of their own. Franke-Ruta offers one such idea:
"If anyone really wanted to fix the private retirement account planning system (and if we're going to enter the private account arena, let's really enter it, I say), they could start by making it mandatory for employers to offer employees the opportunity to buy into 401(k)s before they've worked somewhere for more than one year, and make it easier for people to stick with one account even when they switch jobs. These are retirement planning issues I'm pretty sure young people would get behind. Today's young people live life in the churn, switching jobs every few years, but this widespread ineligibility to participate in company 401(k)s (even without an employer contribution!) before a year of employment can really eat into their ability to plan for the future. For example, if you switch jobs three times in your 20s -- a not uncommon experience -- you can lose 30 percent of your retirement-planning capacity during that decade."
I wholeheartedly agree. When I was laid off from my job earlier this year, I learned that it is not easy to hang on to the account. There is way too much confusion in trying to move the money to another account and in the end, it just becomes a hassle. Instead, 401 (k)s should be more portable, which would make them more attractive to people.
Here is my added advice. If the Dems want a winning strategy, they should argue that we already have a system of private accounts: IRAs, 401(k)s and 403 (b)s. Remind people that Social Security was supposed to be a baseline or social insurance program and not a full on pension plan. As my Dad has taught me, you can't really live just on Social Security, you have to use additional means like a pension or other plans like an IRA. Like unemployment benefits, they keep you from total disaster, but SS won't be "living on the dole."
Anyway, Dems could argue for making these private plans more portable, so that employees can take them from job to job. Add that with making some well-needed changes to SS and the Dems have a winning plan.
Will they do this? It remains to be seen.
Posted by Dennis at December 21, 2004 11:44 PMGet beautiful in Miami...Great blog by the way..
Posted by: Miami Hair Salon at April 3, 2005 11:27 PMAs a "Republican-in-Exile", I have been arguing for years that the existing system of private accounts needs to be expanded and strengthened, but that the guaranteed social insurance represented by Social Security also needs to be safeguarded - primarily from the Republican Right.
Garance Franke-Ruta may be correct that calling George Bush and others seeking to end guaranteed social insurance liars will not score political points. However, hard as it may be for Moderates and Progressives who have chosen to remain inside the Party to admit it, liars is what they are.
A "crisis" that will not turn to reality for 38 years is not a crisis calling for immediate action. Those who are most vocal in calling the long-term problem of Social Security solvency a crisis are also those who have made no secret of their determination to destroy, not reform the system.
Take, for example, the Club for Growth. CfG is fond of saying that Social Security is the riskiest of investments because Congress can, if is chooses, renege on the government's commitment to pay benefits or to maintain Cost of Living adjustments. Their allies then call for just those actions in order to hold back "wasteful" government spending. Honesty?Integrity? I think not.
The solvency problem needs to be addressed through an honest debate that leads to equally honest solutions.
That honesty is completely missing from the leadership of the Republican Party.
Posted by: Robert Benjamin at December 24, 2004 11:37 PMIt seems everyone is correct.
Congress needs to leave the SS money alone and not use it to "float" the country.
Secondly, we need to make 401's more attractive and as you all said, "remove" the restrictions that congress has placed on them.
However, with the current legislatives in office, I really do not think this will occur.
I think the only point you missed was a responsible fiscal policy. Raiding the ol' lockbox, and running up the debt now, so that one is empty, and the other is nice and high when the actual problem is likely to occur isn't my idea of responsible government.
Posted by: William Bollinger at December 22, 2004 11:16 AMWhere has this logic been? I have been saying strengthen the 401(k) program for weeks to lbank stares.
However, we also need to work on Social Security. Whether that's expanding the retirement age, raising the cap (tying it to inflation would be a non-partisan method) would seem acceptable to most voters.
Posted by: EG at December 22, 2004 05:57 AM