|
|
|
Jewish World Review Feb. 17, 2005 / 8 Adar I, 5765 Bad faith on Social Security By Ruben Navarrette Jr.
http://www.JewishWorldReview.com |
I suppose I can't blame Democrats for fighting President Bush's plan to reform Social Security. I just wish that, for the sake of the economic welfare of future generations, they'd fight fair.
So far that hasn't happened. First, Democrats pooh-poohed the idea of a "crisis" and turned a blind eye to the demographic reality that having fewer workers per retiree means a crushing tax burden on those left in the work force. They distorted the impact of the president's plan to allow younger workers to invest in private accounts. Then they came up with the wild accusation that Republicans have a secret agenda to destroy not only Social Security but the legacy of President Franklin Delano Roosevelt.
And now, they're trying to ring the bell early and declare the debate over just as it has begun. All because Democrats see an opportunity to use the Social Security issue to scare up a few votes from elderly voters in the 2006 elections.
Among those dealing in bad faith is Howard Dean. The new chairman of the Democratic National Committee calls the president's proposal a "scheme" that will saddle future generations with debt.
What chutzpah. If Dean really cared about the financial health of future generations, he'd suggest a way to reform the current system so that the workers of tomorrow aren't saddled with sky-high tax rates to keep it afloat. Now that could be a winning argument for Democrats.
But the guy who takes the cake is Rep. Charles Rangel, D-N.Y., who insists that Social Security reform is dead and that President Bush killed it.
How irresponsible. Rangel obviously doesn't care about the impending implosion of one of America's most revered entitlement programs, or what that implosion will mean to anyone born after 1960.
And how misleading. Social Security reform isn't dead. Granted, polls show that a majority of Americans are wary of the president's plan. But the same polls also show that many Americans are convinced the current system isn't built to last, and that many of them would consider other ways of fixing it.
For instance, while people don't seem to like the idea of private accounts, they are very receptive to means-testing benefits so that wealthier retirees don't help drain the system. According to a recent USA Today/CNN/Gallup Poll, two-thirds of those surveyed approved of limiting retirement benefits for the wealthy.
I'd love to know what Rangel thinks of that idea — or frankly, any proposed reform of the current system. When the New York Democrat was asked for his own ideas for saving Social Security during a recent appearance on NBC's "Meet the Press," he dodged the question and seemed to suggest that if Republicans were smart, they'd do the same.
"They can grab that third rail," Rangel told Tim Russert. "I'm not thinking about doing it unless it's done with Democrats and Republicans working together with the president."
There you go again, congressman. Rangel insists that any plan to reform Social Security must have bipartisan support, and yet he never misses an opportunity to use the issue to bludgeon Bush and other Republicans. Not exactly the best way to build bipartisanship.
Anyone who thinks this debate is over is indulging in wishful thinking. I understand why Democrats want this issue to go away. The debate puts them in the uncomfortable position of having to choose between the interests of two constituencies that they've spent decades trying to court: senior citizens and young people.
So far, the elderly have been an easy choice. Most Democrats in Congress don't have the nerve to confront the powerful senior citizens lobby — most notably the AARP with its nearly 40 million members — to force the sort of changes that a simple reading of demographic realities says must take place.
So they'd rather sell out young people who, because they don't vote in the same percentages as the elderly, are on their way to getting the short end of the stick.
Young people need to wake up and start "feeling" the Social Security debate before it's too late. They need to realize that Democrats have made their choice, and that it amounts to an assault on the long-term financial well-being of their generation. Then they need to go to the polls, maybe even run for office themselves, and fight to prevent tax rates from soaring over the next few decades.
Whenever I talk this way, skittish baby boomers write in and accuse me of promoting generational warfare. But the war has already started, and what I'm talking about is nothing more than generational self-defense.
Every weekday JewishWorldReview.com publishes what many in Washington and the media consider "must-reading". Sign up for the daily JWR update. It's free. Just click here.
© 2005 WPWG | ||||||||||
