| Congressional Democrats, their allies in liberal media outlets, and left-leaning groups like the AARP and NAACP are losing their war of negative rhetoric and distortion against restructuring Social Security. A March 30 Fox News/Opinion Dynamics poll found that 60 percent of Americans favor giving individuals the choice to invest a portion of their Social Security contributions in stocks or mutual funds. In the same poll, 54 percent were concerned that the current system will not have enough money to pay them their full benefits when they retire.
Each week liberals find a new mud ball to throw at President Bush?s plan to restructure Social Security, and each week they are forced to regroup and change their tactics when they find it does not stick. Their first mud ball was to charge the president with scaring the public into thinking the program faces a fiscal crisis. Even when the Social Security Trustees issued a report in late March stating that the program was in worse fiscal straits than earlier predicted, Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) stated, ?In reality, the program is on solid ground for decades to come.?
Liberals? second mud ball was an attempt to scare off support for Bush?s plan by citing the enormous transition costs the government would incur. The popular figure cited to enact the plan was $2 trillion. The transition costs, however, were proved to be a myth. Since there are no tangible assets in the Social Security Trust Fund, because Congress has already spent the money, Congress will have to look elsewhere to fund both current benefits and the programs it funds with surplus payroll tax revenues.
According to Edward Prescott, the 2004 Nobel Prize winner in Economics, moving to a system of optional personal retirement accounts would merely require re-labeling the debt that exists in the so-called Trust Fund. In other words, the government will not have to borrow one penny of new money to enact personal retirement accounts.
When that mudslinging did not stick, liberals turned to their age-old favorite tactic ? scare people. In recent weeks, they have tried to scare those receiving survivor and disability benefits into believing that a personal accounts option would necessitate a cut in their benefits. Senator Tom Harkin (D-IA) wrote in an editorial, ?What about the nearly 7 million workers with disabilities and their dependents who currently rely on Social Security disability benefits, often for 100 percent of their income??
The answer to that question is easy ? nothing will change for them. The president has stated on numerous occasions that he will not sign legislation that cuts benefits for survivors and the disabled. The two bills introduced in the Senate to provide personal retirement accounts, by Senator John Sununu (R-NH) and Senator Chuck Hagel (R-NE), leave survivor and disability benefits fully intact.
The latest mud ball heaved at personal retirement accounts is to shift attention toward health disparities between blacks and whites, away from the undeniable differences in life expectancy.
Bush has spent much of his tour through the country explaining to African-Americans the fact that the current Social Security structure is disproportionately damaging to them. Simply put, blacks on average do not live as long as whites, so the average black man or woman will not receive the same amount of benefits as the average white man or woman. Making the problem worse, many blacks do not have enough disposable income after taxes are paid and necessities are met to contribute to a separate retirement plan.
Black leaders in the Democratic Party are furious that Bush would raise these important facts. Representative Mel Watt (D-NC), chairman of the Congressional Black Caucus, said of Bush?s attempt to educate African-Americans, ?If the president and GOP leaders were truly concerned about the life expectancy issue, they would bring the caucus's minority health bill to the floor for a vote.?
Continued... |