Right time, wrong solution

In an interview with The Washington Post concerning Social Security reform, Congressman Rob Simmons (R-2nd) said, "Why stir up a political hornet's nest... when there is no urgency? When does the program go belly up? 2042. I will be dead by then."

According to The Washington Post, Simmons is wary of President George W. Bush's proposals to privatize Social Security. However, the issue of Simmons' stance is more confusing than it appears at face value. Furthermore, his blatant disregard for the future was inappropriate and young people who will be alive in 2042 deserve an apology. The issue of Social Security is an extremely complicated topic. The issue of privatization is further complicated by the fact that the president's proposal for reform was not mentioned extensively during the election and appears to have come out of thin air. Certainly, 2042 is a long time away - most individuals give little thought to the distant future or to distant budgets. A government, unlike the individual, is obligated to consider the distant future in policy and budgetary decisions. A government must consider the short and long-term impact of reforms and the failure of reform. By proclaiming he will be dead by 2042, Simmons has demonstrated he is a mortal, but he has also shown how myopic he is regarding public policy. The policymaking process must not become victim to short-sidedness. Failure to consider the future will have drastic consequences on the direction of this nation and upon the quality of life to which the current generation of college students will be privileged. For this reason, the debate to reform Social Security should be taking place today rather than tomorrow. Bush should be congratulated for bringing a controversial issue to the public discourse. Unfortunately, although some of the issues of reform show some promise, the majority of his proposal favors a system of privatization. Privatization is not an appropriate solution to the problems of Social Security. Simmons currently says he opposes privatization. Yet in a 2001 letter to the Social Security Reform Commission, he signed the following statement: "Social Security reform must offer younger workers the opportunity to improve their rates of return using personal retirement accounts." Granted, he may have changed his position over the past several years. If he has, he should be praised. However, his record is subject to debate. On numerous occasions in the past, he has said he opposes the president's position and then voted with his party and the president. As evidence of his flip-flopping, in 2002 Simmons said war in Iraq "is not in our national interest." Two weeks later, he voted to go to war with Iraq. Such flip-flopping has been characteristic of his tenure in office. With such a history as a flip-flopper, it is time for him to level with his district as to where he stands on the issue of privatization. If his district is lucky, he has changed his mind for good this time. Hopefully, his most recent statements and his position in the 2004 campaign opposing privatization are true. In general, why is privatization of Social Security bad? Privatization is a poor reform for a number of reasons, but one of the reasons given by the liberal organization MoveOn is flawed. According to MoveOn, privatization is a bad reform because "Social Security is not in crisis." As evidence, MoveOn cites the year 2042 as the year that trouble will begin. As such, they add that even in 2042, Social Security will still have 70 percent of the money it needs. Such a statement by the liberal organization is just as myopic as Simmons' statement to The Washington Post. If organizations want to block privatization, they should appeal to all voters and not just seniors. By stating there is no current crisis, MoveOn has effectively isolated all young people who have a stake in the future of the program. There are numerous other better arguments against privatization. Social Security privatization implies diverting taxes into private accounts that are invested in risky stocks. As a result, the reform runs the risk of subjecting an individual's entire retirement plan to the risks of the stock market. Furthermore, privatization can only be paid for by a reduction in the benefits of the program. Even then, the reduction of benefits comes with increased risks of investment. The last consideration is that Wall Street and giant financial firms have the most to gain from privatization. Financial firms will benefit from managing the privatized accounts as the seniors' benefits are being gambled away at their own expense. The reality is that Social Security is in crisis. The Social Security Trustees predict that by 2018 the program will begin to pay out more than it is taking in. By 2042, the program will be in serious trouble. While both of these years seem like they are the distant future, for the youth of America and for current college students these years are within an expected lifetime. Perhaps current politicians like Simmons may not be alive in 2042, but plenty of us will be. Concerning Social Security, a sense of myopia has consumed politicians in both political parties. Even former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich remarked that Bush's reform should not be debated now because the problems are 25 years away. Simmons, Gingrich and MoveOn are all victims of shot-sightedness. They are also victims of fear - a fear of altering a government program close to the heart of the most frequent voters - seniors. Bush has shown great courage in bringing Social Security reform to public debate. Any alteration to the program runs the risk of angering seniors at the expense of precious votes to his party. For this courage, the president is commended. But as for his solution - it is simply wrong. Hopefully, the focus on Social Security will allow politicians to debate other more valuable reforms such as removing the income cutoff on the payroll tax used to fund the program or creating alterations to the benefit scheme.

Sources:

11 Jan. 2005. "In GOP, Resistance on Social Security." Washington Post.

http://www.moveon.org/socialsecurity/letter.html