NY Times: To Debate or to Legislate

December 13, 2002

Writing in The New York Times, David E. Rosenbaum asks whether the election results have given President Bush a mandate to reform Social Security. The test will be if Bush "pushes vigorously [for reform] next year." Presently it's hard to tell, because "The White House is sending mixed signals… If Mr. Bush has decided whether or not to push the issue next year, he has not told anyone outside his inner circle."

While White House press secretary Ari Fleischer has stated that Bush "remains committed to changes in Social Security," he's added that, "He's reviewing what the right time is."

Others in the administration are more straightforward. Homeland Security chief Tom Ridge "said he expected Mr. Bush to take the risk. 'I know the president is a very determined man and a very principled man… and I know the president believes there's not a snowball's chance in hell that Social Security is going to be around in 50 years if we don't do something."

Many opponents of account-driven reform "relish the fight" and welcome Bush to make the issue predominant. "If they bring it up, they will stumble with it and it will help us win back Congress," said Rep. Robert Matsui (D-Ca). Some believe "that in the campaigns this year, Republicans bobbed and weaved about the unpleasant aspects of introducing private investment accounts into the Social Security system," citing the dropping of the label 'privatization' as just one example.

"But Democrats were also evasive during the campaign when they implied that big changes in Social Security were unnecessary." With more baby boomers on the verge of retirement, and with a shrinking ratio of workers to retirees, "benefits being promised today cannot be paid. The only solutions are the very ones faced by those who want private accounts: higher taxes, lower benefits, more borrowing or cuts in popular programs."

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