Democrats Get a Glimpse of 2004 Social Security Debate

August 21, 2003

As the Democratic primaries draw near, it becomes evident that candidates' plans for Social Security, or lack thereof, will not go without scrutiny. In a widely distributed article for the Associated Press, Nedra Pickler reveals how one candidate, in particular, is ill-prepared for a serious discussion on Social Security. She inadvertently captures the difficult situation Bush's opposition will face in 2004 without a solid plan.

Pickler writes: "Democratic presidential candidate Howard Dean said Wednesday that he misspoke when he told the AFL-CIO he never favored raising the retirement age for Social Security benefits to age 70.… Dean's false statement came Tuesday night during an appearance at the AFL-CIO's Democratic presidential candidate forum.

"Rep. Dennis Kucinich of Ohio, who favors taking it back to age 65, criticized Dean for saying he'd raise to 68 or 70. Dean responded, 'I have never favored a Social Security retirement age of 70 nor do I favor one of 68.'"

Unfortunately for Dean, Pickler points out, "according to [a] 1995 Newhouse News Service article, Dean said the way to balance the budget is for Congress to move the retirement age to 70, cut defense, Social Security, Medicare and veterans pensions, and then have the states cut almost everything else."

Not so far back was Dean's June appearance on NBC's "Meet the Press" in which "He said to balance Social Security, he would consider raising the retirement age to 68 and letting more salary above $87,000 fall under the payroll tax."

After sharp criticism on the part of Kucinich, Pickler adds, "On Wednesday, Dean said since his appearance on 'Meet the Press,' he has consulted with experts and concluded that no increase in the retirement age would be necessary. A better solution, he said, would be to raise the salary limit. 'I'm willing to take [the salary cap] off entirely if we need to,' he said." Note: Wednesday, August 6, Dean said, "I'm willing to take it off entirely if we need to." Let's remember that come presidential elections.

Likewise, Elizabeth Auster of the Cleveland Plain Dealer demonstrates in her article, "'Solving' Social Security: This Time, Let's Try…" that no candidate is ready to engage in an explosive discussion about Social Security.

She writes, "It's probably not a coincidence that the two Democratic presidential candidates generating the most buzz these days have made proposals to mess around with taxes that workers pay for Social Security.

"Recently, for example, when asked on NBC's 'Meet The Press' how he would strengthen Social Security, former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean proposed lifting the current $87,000 earnings cap above which workers don't pay Social Security taxes.

"Why, the argument goes, should people who earn more than $87,000 not have to pay Social Security taxes on their entire incomes when people who earn less pay on their entire incomes?

"If Dean's proposal were to become law," she answers, "one of two things would happen: Retirement benefits to higher earners would have to increase, which would cost money and thereby undermine his goal of raising money for Social Security. Or higher-income earners would get angry after noticing on their next annual Social Security statement that their retirement deal has just gotten a whole lot worse."

"That could provoke exactly the sort of resentment that many people who want to preserve Social Security fear could be its undoing. … The more people with higher incomes feel that Social Security is a lousy deal for them, the less likely they are to continue supporting it. And that could set the stage for a major change, like privatization.

"Democrats, of course, have led the fight against privatization. But their fight is likely to get harder if they push proposals that fracture the political support that has kept Social Security alive." This is not good strategy when vying for the White House.

Presidential hopefuls are butting heads on Social Security while no plan, save partial privatization, satisfies the system's many ailments. Correctly, candidates without plans are criticized for their lack of vision, while plans to "solve" Social Security's financial shortfalls expose just how limited the options are.

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