 |
Kolbe, Stenholm Say "No Plan, No Play"
December 5, 2001
Two of Congress’ most prominent proponents of Social Security
reform have laid down a clear challenge to opponents of individual
accounts—come up with your own plan to preserve Social Security’s
solvency, or stop criticizing those who do. Jim Kolbe (R-AZ) and
Charles Stenholm (D-TX), who have authored a bipartisan proposal
for Social Security reform that includes individual accounts, sent a
letter to House Speaker Dennis Hastert and Minority Leader Richard
Gephardt calling for Congress to begin a "serious" debate over Social
Security reform. Firing a preemptive shot, Kolbe and Stenholm said
that those who would criticize the upcoming report of the President’s
Commission to Strengthen Social Security "have an obligation to
explain how they would address [Social Security’s problems] by
submitting alternative plans that can be scored by the actuaries."
Kolbe and Stenholm said it was unfair for critics of individual
accounts to nit-pick reform plans, while failing to offer any alternative.
They wrote:
All participants in the debate over the
future of Social Security must be held to the
same standard so that the different
approaches to strengthening Social Security
can be compared on a level playing field. This requires all proposals to be subject to
thorough analysis by the Social Security
actuaries, as well as the Congressional
Budget Office and other independent analysts.
Analysis of reform proposals should examine
both the impact of the plan on payroll taxes
and benefit levels and on the non-Social
Security budget, particularly for plans that
leave in place large financing gaps or rely on
general revenue transfusions. Such an
analysis will provide policymakers with a
better understanding of the tradeoffs involved
in addressing the financial shortfalls of the
Social Security system.
In short, Kolbe and Stenholm say that it is no longer acceptable
to demagogue reform plans by comparing them to a mythological
Social Security system that needs no reform. It was President
Clinton who noted that there were only three alternatives for Social
Security reform: 1) raise taxes, 2) cut benefits, or 3) increase the rate-of-
return through private investment. Opponents of private
investment, therefore, must come clean and acknowledge that they
would raise taxes or cut benefits.
2002 Index | 2001 Index | 2000 Index | 1999 Index | 1998 Index
|
|
