Clicking on banner ads enables JWR to constantly improve
Jewish World Review May 11, 2000 /6 Iyar, 5760

Joseph Perkins

JWR's Pundits
World Editorial
Cartoon Showcase

Mallard Fillmore

Michael Barone
Mona Charen
Linda Chavez
Ann Coulter
Greg Crosby
Larry Elder
Don Feder
Suzanne Fields
James Glassman
Paul Greenberg
Bob Greene
Betsy Hart
Nat Hentoff
David Horowitz
Arianna Huffington
Marianne Jennings
Michael Kelly
Mort Kondracke
Ch. Krauthammer
Lawrence Kudlow
Dr. Laura
John Leo
David Limbaugh
Michelle Malkin
Jackie Mason
Chris Matthews
Michael Medved
Kathleen Parker
Wes Pruden
Debbie Schlussel
Sam Schulman
Roger Simon
Tony Snow
Thomas Sowell
Cal Thomas
Jonathan S. Tobin
Ben Wattenberg
George Will
Bruce Williams
Walter Williams
Mort Zuckerman

Consumer Reports


AlGore should keep silent if he doesn't have the facts -- ASK ANYONE INSIDE THE BELTWAY and they'll tell you: Social Security is the "third rail" of politics. And they'll also tell you that if, perchance, a presidential candidate proposed to touch this sacred entitlement, he'd risk political martyrdom.

Which is why George W. Bush demonstrated he's a stand-up politician.

Where other seekers of high office have feared to tread -- saying anything about Social Security that could be distorted by foes to frighten senior voters -- the Republican Party standard-bearer has boldly stepped forward.

Specifically, Bush proposes to establish individual investment accounts within Social Security, much like private 401(k) retirement plans offered by many of the nation's employers.

His plan would allow workers to invest a portion of their Social Security payroll tax into stocks and bonds, allowing them to take advantage of Wall Street's historically high long-term returns.

As it is now, a worker who retires today will receive a measly 1.6 percent average rate of return on the payroll taxes he or she has paid into the system. A baby born today can look forward to a less-than-1-percent return on his or her lifetime earnings.

Meanwhile, over the long term, market investments have averaged returns of more than 7 percent. No sooner had Bush proposed his Social Security plan than Al Gore -- who previously supported the idea of investing a portion of Social Security funds in the private investment markets -- went on the attack.

"I call upon him to tell us what is in the secret plan to privatize Social Security," Gore demagogued, in a speech this week to the New Jersey chapter of the AFL-CIO.

Gore accused his Republican opponent of "playing roulette" with Social Security, with "putting at risk" the payroll taxes that Americans pay into the Social Security system, with "breaking the contract" that the federal government has with future retirees.

But is it like playing roulette to allow working Americans to divert, perhaps, 2 percent of their payroll taxes to individual investment accounts, which would still be overseen by the Social Security Administration?

Is it too risky to allow Americans to invest that 2 percent in the private financial markets where they stand to reap a long-term 7 percent gain vs. the less-than-1 percent they can expect under the current Social Security structure?

Now it makes sense

Would the government break its unspoken contract with retirees by changing the system as it presently exists -- especially considering that Social Security will start paying out more than it brings in within 15 years unless reforms are implemented now?

The American people think not. In fact, a CNN/USA Today/Gallup Poll back in January indicated that six in 10 Americans favored proposals to divert some Social Security taxes into personal retirement accounts invested in stocks and bonds.

The Clinton-Gore White House obviously read that poll, as a recent article by Derrick Max, government affairs director for the free-market Cato Institute, suggests. In February, Max relates, the White House submitted its 2001 budget request to Congress. In the second paragraph, explaining the administration's plan to shore up the Social Security system by transferring budget surpluses into the Social Security trust fund, the budget reads: "The president proposes to invest half of the transferred amounts in corporate equity."

Likewise, writes Max, last year's Clinton-Gore budget noted that "the administration proposes tapping the power of private financial markets to increase the resources to pay for future Social Security benefits." So how does candidate Gore explain this election-year flip-flop? "We didn't really propose it," he told the Washington Post. "We talked about the idea."

This is the kind of doublespeak for which the vice president has become notorious. He has made it abundantly clear that he will say anything to advance his political ends; to tar his political foes. Even if it means telling obvious untruths. Even if it means abandoning previously stated positions.

Gore never met a principle he wasn't willing to sacrifice on the demon altar of politics. That's why his criticism of George W. Bush's proposed Social Security reform rings hollow.

JWR periodic contributor Joseph Perkins is San Diego Union-Tribune columnist and a television commentator. Send your comments to him by clicking here.


04/28/00: The people won't forget
03/24/00: You don't need to be paranoid to be wary of the census
03/24/00: Gotcha! Treasury Dept. spills the beans about Bubba's bull
03/16/00: Al Gore's glaring hypocrisy
03/07/00: John McCain is a fraud
02/17/00: The only thing that will rein in NFL criminals is negative public opinion
01/27/00: Linking marriage and the income gap
01/12/00: Black blind obedience
12/21/99: Tripp's courage was punished
12/09/99: Politics gets in the way of food
12/02/99: Washington isn't speaking English
10/14/99: Using sexual harassment as a weapon
10/04/99: What about victims' rights?
09/17/99: Feel like you're being watched?
09/02/99: Our air traffic system is out of control
08/26/99: We need another Manhattan Project
08/13/99: Tempest in the PETA pot
08/05/99: Utilizing junk science for big payoffs

©1999, NEA