Dueling Op-Eds

November 5, 2002

This week USA Today ran editorials on the Social Security issue from two different perspectives. The first piece, from the newspaper's editors, calls for politicians to initiate dialogue and action on personal accounts instead of political posturing: "On Oct. 8, House Minority Leader Richard Gephardt, D-Mo., urged Congress to hold 'a meaningful Social Security discussion' about the federal retirement system's future because the issue is too important for typical political posturing. Yet the next day, Gephardt ignored his own advice, accusing Republicans of a 'stealth campaign to gut Social Security' after Election Day."

"So it goes across the USA. With both the House and Senate up for grabs next week, congressional campaigns are rife with talk about Social Security and its looming financial crunch. Candidates know the issue concerns seniors, the most reliable voters."

"Yet little of that rhetoric is meaningful, or constructive. Instead, candidates are running from reasonable reforms while charging that opponents want to gut Social Security. The tactics aren't new. Democrats have long charged that Republicans would cut benefits, but offer no fixes of their own. Republicans have promoted personal savings accounts without noting they would be coupled with lower guaranteed benefits. The result has been stalemate, even as thoughtful lawmakers in both parties admit changes are needed to keep the system solvent."

The editorial continues, "Avoiding insolvency will require some combination of a raised retirement age, benefit cuts, tax increases or partial privatization, such as the government investing retirement funds in stocks or bonds or letting workers shift part of their Social Security taxes into private 401(k)-style accounts. The idea behind private investment is to produce a higher return than Social Security now provides to offset benefit cuts."

"Whatever the mix, reforms must come soon. Pension experts say workers will need at least 15 years to adjust their retirement plans to program changes. Yet reformers aren't likely to step forward, given current campaign attacks."

It concludes, "With the Social Security-reform window rapidly closing, sound solutions and prompt action are needed. Neither can occur as long as lawmakers keep ducking the meaningful discussion Gephardt urged."

A response from Roger Hickey and Hans Riemer of the Campaign for America's future criticizes personal account plans and ask for honesty from politicians who favor them.

"During the past two years, hundreds of billions of dollars of Americans' retirement assets have been vaporized in the stock market. Yet despite these devastating losses, many politicians have embraced plans to privatize Social Security, sharply cutting the program's guaranteed benefits while exposing us all to more risk in the stock market."

The authors demand that politicians clarify their positions on reform:

"Given the unpopularity of these radical privatization proposals, it is not surprising that many politicians who support them are trying to hide their views from the voters before the 2002 elections. But this is obviously not good for our democracy. If they are willing to vote for privatizing Social Security in the next Congress, they should be willing to tell the voters before the election."

Hickey and Riemer conclude,

"The country needs to address the real problems facing Social Security, but when many politicians (including the president) support a privatization plan that worsens those problems, the public needs to hear a real debate about it. The result will be a more informed electorate, better able to choose among candidates and a Congress more willing to strengthen, rather than privatize Social Security."

Leanne Abdnor, a member of the President's Commission to Strengthen Social Security, responded to the Hickey/Riemer editorial with the following letter:

"Despite accusing others of wanting to 'hide their views from the voters' on Social Security reform, Roger Hickey and Hans Riemer of the Campaign for America's Future ('Opposing Views', Oct. 29, 2002) have themselves been unwilling to reveal their plan for resolving the fiscal crisis ahead in Social Security."

"In testimony before the President's Commission to Strengthen Social Security over a year ago, Hickey and Riemer strongly criticized personal retirement accounts, which is fine. But when asked to offer their own ideas for resolving the financial shortfall ahead in Social Security, neither Hickey nor Riemer were willing to offer the Commission any specific ideas. Hickey responded, 'I am not prepared to give you a plan right now.' Reimer agreed to produce his own reform proposal for the Commission. Regrettably, over a year later, neither have offered their views on this critical issue. The Commission's detailed reform proposals were subsequently produced in December, 2001."

"The gloomy conclusion I have drawn is that many of the most vocal critics of personal retirement accounts- including Hickey and Reimer- prefer to distract the public by accusing others of not wanting to enter into 'a real debate', and hope that the public won't notice that it is THEM who are steadfastly resistant to putting their cards on the table."

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