Home
In this issue
April 9, 2014

Jonathan Tobin: Why Did Kerry Lie About Israeli Blame?

Samuel G. Freedman: A resolution 70 years later for a father's unsettling legacy of ashes from Dachau

Jessica Ivins: A resolution 70 years later for a father's unsettling legacy of ashes from Dachau

Kim Giles: Asking for help is not weakness

Kathy Kristof and Barbara Hoch Marcus: 7 Great Growth Israeli Stocks

Matthew Mientka: How Beans, Peas, And Chickpeas Cleanse Bad Cholesterol and Lowers Risk of Heart Disease

Sabrina Bachai: 5 At-Home Treatments For Headaches

The Kosher Gourmet by Daniel Neman Have yourself a matzo ball: The secrets bubby never told you and recipes she could have never imagined

April 8, 2014

Lori Nawyn: At Your Wit's End and Back: Finding Peace

Susan B. Garland and Rachel L. Sheedy: Strategies Married Couples Can Use to Boost Benefits

David Muhlbaum: Smart Tax Deductions Non-Itemizers Can Claim

Jill Weisenberger, M.S., R.D.N., C.D.E : Before You Lose Your Mental Edge

Dana Dovey: Coffee Drinkers Rejoice! Your Cup Of Joe Can Prevent Death From Liver Disease

Chris Weller: Electric 'Thinking Cap' Puts Your Brain Power Into High Gear

The Kosher Gourmet by Marlene Parrish A gift of hazelnuts keeps giving --- for a variety of nutty recipes: Entree, side, soup, dessert

April 4, 2014

Rabbi David Gutterman: The Word for Nothing Means Everything

Charles Krauthammer: Kerry's folly, Chapter 3

Amy Peterson: A life of love: How to build lasting relationships with your children

John Ericson: Older Women: Save Your Heart, Prevent Stroke Don't Drink Diet

John Ericson: Why 50 million Americans will still have spring allergies after taking meds

Cameron Huddleston: Best and Worst Buys of April 2014

Stacy Rapacon: Great Mutual Funds for Young Investors

Sarah Boesveld: Teacher keeps promise to mail thousands of former students letters written by their past selves

The Kosher Gourmet by Sharon Thompson Anyone can make a salad, you say. But can they make a great salad? (SECRETS, TESTED TECHNIQUES + 4 RECIPES, INCLUDING DRESSINGS)

April 2, 2014

Paul Greenberg: Death and joy in the spring

Dan Barry: Should South Carolina Jews be forced to maintain this chimney built by Germans serving the Nazis?

Mayra Bitsko: Save me! An alien took over my child's personality

Frank Clayton: Get happy: 20 scientifically proven happiness activities

Susan Scutti: It's Genetic! Obesity and the 'Carb Breakdown' Gene

Lecia Bushak: Why Hand Sanitizer May Actually Harm Your Health

Stacy Rapacon: Great Funds You Can Own for $500 or Less

Cameron Huddleston: 7 Ways to Save on Home Decor

The Kosher Gourmet by Steve Petusevsky Exploring ingredients as edible-stuffed containers (TWO RECIPES + TIPS & TECHINQUES)

Jewish World Review April 14, 2005 / 5 Nisan, 5765

Triangulate Social Security by offering a choice of plans

By Dick Morris


Printer Friendly Version
Email this article

http://www.JewishWorldReview.com | In 1995, the Newt Gingrich-led Republicans accused President Clinton of having no serious intent to balance the budget. They said that, while he was paying lip service to deficit reduction, he was doing nothing about trimming spending and, indeed, was still plotting further tax increases.

Today, the Hillary Clinton-led Democrats are attacking President Bush, saying that he wants to let Social Security die of its own funding shortfall while he builds a privatization lifeboat in which the rich and the upper middle class can escape.

Ten years ago, the truth was that unless and until Clinton proposed his own version of a balanced budget, replete with substantial spending cuts, neither the nation nor the Congress would take seriously his proclamations of support for deficit reduction.

With the White House, most of Clinton's liberal advisers urged that he not produce his own balanced-budget proposal but leave to the Republicans the onus of suggesting the cuts necessary to eliminate the deficit. They said that by embracing cuts on his own he would incur public wrath and lose his standing to fight congressionally imposed reductions.

Today, the conservatives in the Bush White House are telling their president much the same thing: that he should not propose his own series of cuts in Social Security because it will subject him to a massive political vulnerability and give the Democrats fodder with which to attack him. They say that he should simply talk about the problems Social Security faces and bemoan the absence of a Democratic plan for saving it, even as he refuses to proffer his own.

Back then, Clinton defied the conventional wisdom of his party and most of his administration and submitted his proposal for a balanced budget, including a broad package of spending cuts that were to pave the way to the elimination of the deficit. But he avoided most of the heavy lifting in suggesting these cuts by proposing to take 10 years — instead of the GOP proposal for seven — to bring about his objective. As a result, his cuts did not trigger the damage his advisers had feared.

Once Clinton had proposed a balanced budget, he could no longer be attacked as insincere in wanting a balanced budget and, at a stroke, the Republicans lost their best issue. No longer could they hide their desire to dismantle an array of important programs such as Medicaid, Medicare, federal education funding and environmental enforcement behind the fašade of deficit elimination. Clinton had taken away their monopoly on the deficit issue.

Today, Bush has to take away the Democratic mantra that is costing him so dearly in popular support: that Bush wants to wreck Social Security. He needs to counter the effective AARP ad that shows a house being demolished as a metaphor for the destruction of Social Security. By proposing his own package of cuts, Bush can rob the Democrats of their positioning just as Clinton did to the Republicans.

But just as Clinton muted the pain of his cuts by stretching the reduction over 10 years, so Bush can avoid the dire implications of reductions in benefits, raises in taxation or postponement of retirement by using the central ingredient, choice. By offering beneficiaries one of three plans — lower benefits or later retirement or higher taxes, he can avoid the pitfalls of a one-size-fits-all approach to the complex and highly individual calculations of what retirement is right for you.

Bush's current approach is to give Congress a menu of cuts. But that is flawed. He must give the beneficiaries themselves a menu of reductions or tax increases from which to choose for their own retirement. By leaving it up to Congress, Bush looks as if he doesn't really want to save the system. By leaving it up to the beneficiaries, he belies that accusation completely.

This approach will turn the debate back to its original focus: privatization of a portion of the Social Security tax revenues. The issue will be no longer destruction of the system but individual choice and options.

(If any reader happens to know anybody who works in the White House, please call this column to their attention.)

Every weekday JewishWorldReview.com publishes what many in in the media and Washington consider "must-reading". Sign up for the daily JWR update. It's free. Just click here.



JWR contributor Dick Morris is author, most recently, of "Because He Could". (ClickHERE to purchase. Sales help fund JWR.) Comment by clicking here.



Dick Morris Archives


© 2005, Dick Morris

Columnists

Toons

Lifestyles