S.C. Ads Not Quite Straight

October 11, 2002

Social Security continues to be a hot issue in the South Carolina Senate race between Republican congressman Lindsey Graham and former College of Charleston President Alex Sanders, the Democratic nominee. Both candidates have taken to the air with ads on Social Security, but neither ad is as fully informative as it could be.

Graham's ad follows:

Announcer: Alex Sanders and his Democratic Party cronies in Washington have it wrong. Lindsey Graham and President Bush have a plan to guarantee benefits and to protect and preserve Social Security. (On screen: footage of Graham and Bush together at the White House)

But Sanders and his Washington handlers run TV ads full of distortions to scare seniors. (Headline on screen: "Familiar Scare Tactics on Social Security" -- The Washington Times, December 17, 2001)

Ads that have been called bogus appeals to emotion that are trying to scare us all to death. (On screen: "Bogus"; "Trying to Scare Us to Death" -- The State, Editorial, 9-22-02)

So the next time you see one of Alex Sanders' TV commercials, remember: They say a lot more about Sanders than they do about Lindsey Graham. (On screen: "BOGUS"; Paid For By Lindsey Graham For Senate)

Analysis: The Graham ad is correct that President Bush's plans to add personal accounts to Social Security would guarantee benefits for current and near retirees (age 55 and older), and would continue to provide a government-paid benefit alongside those from personal accounts. But workers who chose to invest their personal accounts in stocks and corporate bonds could be subject to the risks – and the rewards – of market investment.

Sander's ad follows:

ANNOUNCER [v/o]: Who will protect Social Security? Lindsey Graham voted to cut cost of living increases, and Graham's risky Social Security stock market scheme will cost $2 trillion.

(On screen: Lindsey Graham: Voted to cut Social Security cost of living increases -- RC 345. H Con Res 67, 5/18/95; Risky Social Security stock market scheme cost $2 trillion -- The State, 8/12/02)

Even Graham admits it might raise taxes. (On screen: The State, 8/12/02) Alex Sanders has a different approach.

(On screen: For sound Social Security... Quit spending the Social Security trust fund.)

ALEX SANDERS [to group]: Now, Social Security could be sound, you understand, if we would only do one thing, and that is quit spending the money for other things. And that's part of overall fiscal responsibility.

ANNOUNCER [v/o]: Alex Sanders for U.S. Senate.

(On screen: Paid for by Sanders for U.S. Senate)

Analysis: Sanders is correct that "raids" on the trust fund to cover deficits elsewhere in the budget have made it ineffective as a means to pre-fund future Social Security benefits. But he is wrong that stopping those raids would fix Social Security permanently. Even if every penny of Social Security surpluses since 1983 had been saved and will be saved, the program would still become insolvent in 2041. That would make no difference to saving Social Security for younger workers. Clearly, we would need to do more. In addition, while it is easy to say that we should stop "raiding" the fund, history shows that as long as the money is available no "lock box" is strong enough to avoid being picked. That is one reason many reformers favor personal accounts: they put money where it cannot be spent on other programs.

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