Campaign Hits

August 16, 2002

The Arkansas Democrat-Gazette reports that the Senate race between incumbent Sen. Hutchinson and state Attorney General David Pryor is again focusing on Social Security. Pryor has signed a pledge to oppose any reforms incorporating personal retirement accounts and is attacking Hutchinson for voting for a 1998 "sense of the Senate" resolution supporting accounts. "It didn't make sense in 1998 when he voted for it, and it certainly doesn't make sense in the environment of Enron and WorldCom," Pryor said. Hutchinson replied by saying "I don't believe we ought to put Social Security into the stock market, and I don't think we ought to privatize it. I'm the person who believes that Social Security is so sacrosanct that every beneficiary should have a legal document ensuring that your benefits cannot be taken away from you. I don't know what I can do to make my commitment to Social Security any stronger or more positive than that."

In South Dakota's Senate race, GOP Rep. John Thune is turning the tables on incumbent Sen. Tim Johnson, running ads saying that Johnson voted to "raid" the Social Security trust fund and supported "privatizing" Social Security by allowing the government to invest the trust fund in the stock market. : "Tim Johnson voted seven times to raid $300 billion dollars from Social Security; 5 times against a new law to stop politicians from raising the trust fund. Johnson supports a social security privatization plan that lets the federal government invest Social Security in the stock market. John Thune opposes letting the Federal government invest Social Security in the stock market; He voted 5 times to stop politicians from raiding the trust fund. John Thune: guaranteeing Social Security; fighting higher taxes." Johnson reacted with anger, calling the ads "breathtakingly incorrect" and "misleading." Johnson said the spots "reference statements he made in the mid-to late 1990s about broadening the Social Security investment portfolio and insinuate that is his position today." Johnson said his statements "are the product of thinking out loud and reflect his participation in a widespread national debate at the time." Johnson said that at "no time did he carry that forward to write or support a bill for Social Security privatization," and that he's "opposed to investing the money in anything but Treasury bonds that will ensure a guaranteed benefit for recipients."

In a campaign analysis, United Press International's Peter Roff writes that "For all its political potency, Social Security is one of the least-understood issues facing the American voter."

"For much of the year, Republicans have been backing away from [Social Security reform], deliberately eschewing the use of the word "privatization" to describe their different reform proposals. The Democrats, on the other hand, have been increasingly on the attack, suggesting the GOP proposals have caused the reappearance of deficit spending, caused a raid on the Social Security trust fund, and will eventually force benefits to be cut."

"Pollster David Winston suggests this may be a flawed strategy. To him, the data indicates that most Americans understand that Social Security needs to be reformed yet again and soon. "They are not at the point of issuing a definitive 'yes' or 'no' to any of the proposals on the table; they want to hear all the options," he said. "The phase that we are in is an idea-sharing phase. The principal problem the Republicans face is that the Democrats respond to every idea with a 'No, we are not going to touch Social Security' reaction every time," Winston said. If they try to make Social Security the defining issue of the 2002 campaign, the Democrats may be biting off more than they can chew.

"The Social Security issue is likely to increase in intensity as summer moves into fall, with each party vulnerable the charge they are insufficiently supportive of the program. Republicans will have to spend time explaining why their different reform programs -- which the public intuitively supports -- are not a threat to the continued existence of the program. Democrats must defend against the charge that they, for the many years they controlled both congressional chambers, continually voted to spend Social Security trust fund money on the general expenses of government -- effectively raiding the program. In the end, the issue is likely to sway few voters to behave in a way counter to their natural inclination. In each case, the partisan charge serves to reinforce the already held views of the opposition party's typical voter."

2005 Index | 2004 Index
2003 Index | 2002 Index | 2001 Index
2000 Index | 1999 Index | 1998 Index