From an article1:
The run-up to President Bush's plan to deal with Social Security is looking a lot like the run-up to his plan to deal with Saddam Hussein.
The expected Social Security shortfall has been a perennial domestic concern in much the same way that Hussein's intransigence with arms inspectors was a perennial foreign-policy concern: From the White House to Congress to think tanks, policy makers worried about it, but presidents (including Bush) felt no immediate need to deal with it.
Then Bush decided to focus on it, and suddenly a long-term concern became intense and immediate.
Much as the Iraq war was preceded by speeches designed to show Hussein in the most threatening light, the Bush economic summit seemed designed to dominate a slow news week with the idea that failing to deal with Social Security now will hurt the national economy.
"The time to start making sacrifices is now . . . so that the markets can have confidence that we're on a course that is going to avoid a train wreck," Bush said at the summit.
Still, the link between the current economy and a Social Security deficit that will begin to strike benefits in decades is every bit as speculative and theoretical as the link between Hussein and the war on terrorism in late 2002. But few people in the political mainstream would dismiss the idea out of hand, and arguing that Bush's predictions are a bit too dire seems unnecessary to most Democrats at this stage...
...Right now, however, the Democratic message is hardly being heard while the president has created a strong linkage in the public mind between the Social Security shortfall and the national economy, and between dealing with the shortfall and creating personal investment accounts.
Democrats have been down this road before. In 2002, some Democrats offered nodding agreement that Iraq was a serious national security threat while, in their minds, reserving judgment on the exact course Bush should take. But by the time they objected to Bush's course, they appeared to be contradicting themselves. In this year's election, Bush repeatedly stressed that Democrats, too, believed Hussein was a threat, as if their concurrence on the need for action was the same as endorsing Bush's actions.
Bush's plan for Social Security may, indeed, prove to be the most hopeful of many alternatives, all of which involve sacrifices. And many conservatives argue that the threat posed to poorer workers by personal retirement accounts must be weighed against the same workers' chances of earning extra money through good investments.
Democrats, however, have made protecting and preserving the current system one of their defining issues as a party: For at least two decades, they have been contending that Republicans are plotting to reduce promised benefits.
If Democrats plan to come out against Bush's plan, they should weigh in now. As many of their leaders can attest, the public has little patience for complaints registered too softly or too late. (
link)
Will Congressional Democrats ever grow spines?
Complete text of the article,
Plan for Social Security relies on an immediate, familiar Bush strategy, by Peter S. Canellos
The run-up to President Bush's plan to deal with Social Security is looking a lot like the run-up to his plan to deal with Saddam Hussein.
The expected Social Security shortfall has been a perennial domestic concern in much the same way that Hussein's intransigence with arms inspectors was a perennial foreign-policy concern: From the White House to Congress to think tanks, policy makers worried about it, but presidents (including Bush) felt no immediate need to deal with it.
Then Bush decided to focus on it, and suddenly a long-term concern became intense and immediate.
Much as the Iraq war was preceded by speeches designed to show Hussein in the most threatening light, the Bush economic summit seemed designed to dominate a slow news week with the idea that failing to deal with Social Security now will hurt the national economy.
"The time to start making sacrifices is now . . . so that the markets can have confidence that we're on a course that is going to avoid a train wreck," Bush said at the summit.
Still, the link between the current economy and a Social Security deficit that will begin to strike benefits in decades is every bit as speculative and theoretical as the link between Hussein and the war on terrorism in late 2002. But few people in the political mainstream would dismiss the idea out of hand, and arguing that Bush's predictions are a bit too dire seems unnecessary to most Democrats at this stage.
But what stage is it? Just as Bush now seems to have been set on invading Iraq during the discussion stage of the war, he seems to know what he wants to do with Social Security during the discussion stage of this big initiative, too.
In this light, his comments at the economic summit seem far more portentous than mere brainstorming: "I think there are more people now who believe they'll never see a check than people worried they'll have their check taken away. . . . It's going to be very important to reassure our seniors who depend upon Social Security that nothing will change. . . . And really what we're talking about is a new generation."
Throughout the summit, Bush's intention seemed fairly clear: Preserve the current levels of expected benefits for people close to retirement, but cut the projected benefits for younger workers -- those who Bush says do not expect anything, anyway -- while allowing a portion of their checks to be invested in the private markets, thus giving them the hope of recouping some money through shrewd investing.
Shifting Social Security tax reserves into the private markets has been a pet project of some conservative economists for a long while, just as neoconservatives had been extolling the benefits of deposing Hussein long before Sept. 11, 2001. But much as the "lessons of Sept. 11" became Bush's impetus for taking on Iraq, the projected Social Security shortfall is his impetus for pushing private retirement accounts.
But all along, the position of most Democrats has been that allowing private investment of any portion of Social Security does not ease the shortfall -- it increases the shortfall by draining cash for current benefits from the system. And, in political terms, it offers the most appeal to workers with enough savings for a comfortable retirement without Social Security: They can invest the money without suffering too much if it is lost. But poorer workers could face a double whammy: Lower projected benefits, plus the chance they would lose more of the money they need to live on if their investments go south.
Right now, however, the Democratic message is hardly being heard while the president has created a strong linkage in the public mind between the Social Security shortfall and the national economy, and between dealing with the shortfall and creating personal investment accounts.
Democrats have been down this road before. In 2002, some Democrats offered nodding agreement that Iraq was a serious national security threat while, in their minds, reserving judgment on the exact course Bush should take. But by the time they objected to Bush's course, they appeared to be contradicting themselves. In this year's election, Bush repeatedly stressed that Democrats, too, believed Hussein was a threat, as if their concurrence on the need for action was the same as endorsing Bush's actions.
Bush's plan for Social Security may, indeed, prove to be the most hopeful of many alternatives, all of which involve sacrifices. And many conservatives argue that the threat posed to poorer workers by personal retirement accounts must be weighed against the same workers' chances of earning extra money through good investments.
Democrats, however, have made protecting and preserving the current system one of their defining issues as a party: For at least two decades, they have been contending that Republicans are plotting to reduce promised benefits.
If Democrats plan to come out against Bush's plan, they should weigh in now. As many of their leaders can attest, the public has little patience for complaints registered too softly or too late.
reference=http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2004/12/28/plan_for_social_security_relies_on_an_immediate_familiar_bush_strategy?mode=PF
The Clipboard: Plan for Social Security relies on an immediate, familiar Bush strategy