About the Project | Contact Us | Search

cato.org
Its Your Money, Your Choice, Your Future
Cato Institute
Project on Social Security Choice Project on Social Security Choice

Reform and YOU
Social Security Toolkit

Cato's Plan
Get Involved
Press Room
Congressional Corner


Join Us in our efforts —
we need your support.

Donate Today!
 

Unsavory Tactics

November 1, 2002

In an article for Insight on the News, Democrat Jerry Zeifman scathingly criticizes the campaign tactics of Democratic National Committee chairman Terence McAuliffe who, Zeifman writes, "this year sent out fund-raising letters charging Republicans with plans to dismantle our Social Security system. As I see it, McAuliffe is guilty of mail fraud."

"First, the letters imply that the plan requires most, if not all, Social Security tax revenues to be invested in stocks. This is false. Under the Bush plan no taxpayer is required to invest any revenues in the stock market. The investment is entirely voluntary and is limited to no more than 16 percent of the payroll tax."

"Second, in characterizing it as a 'Republican' plan, the letters fail to disclose that Democrats such as former senators Patrick Moynihan of New York and Bob Kerrey of Nebraska, as well as current senator John Breaux of Louisiana, have endorsed bipartisan proposals for investing Social Security revenues in stocks."

"One of the arguments advanced in support of the bipartisan plans is that, like the present Bush plan, they provide special new benefits for women and minority groups — who tend strongly to favor the Democratic Party. Such plans, like the current Bush plan, provide for the inheritance by the taxpayers' heirs of the stock accumulated in Social Security accounts."

Zeifman continues, "Finally, McAuliffe does not mention that former president Bill Clinton also had made a proposal similar to the Bush plan. Ironically, under the Clinton proposal the government, and not the taxpayer, selected the stock. This would give the corporations chosen by the White House a special incentive to make campaign contributions to the president. In contrast, under the Bush plan each taxpayer is free to choose stock from among a diversity of companies. Thus the political corruption fostered under the Clinton plan would not occur under the Bush proposal."

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





Printer Friendly Version


  Quick Facts Archive  
  Lost connection to MySQL server at 'reading initial communication packet', system error: 113  
Research Corner
 

BROWSE BY TOPIC

Social Security's Financial Crisis
Rate of Return Issues
Women, Minorities, and the Poor
Other Reasons for Social Security Reform
Government Investment of Social Security
Social Security Reform Plans
International Pension Reform
Transition Financing
Problems and Criticisms
Public Opinion and Polling

BROWSE BY AUTHOR Go

BROWSE BY TYPE Go

 
 

"And there are more ideas-driven initiatives to come, including the partial privatization of Social Security, an issue that would still be unthinkable were it not for the relentless agitation of places like the Heritage Foundation and the Cato Institute."

- The Economist
February 10, 2001