Social Security Deal From the Moderates?

Adam Doverspike

Business Week takes a look at a possible compromise by the Senate's moderates (i.e. "gang of 14") on Social Security.

For months, the Social Security debate has been stuck in an endless round of recriminations between President George W. Bush and Capitol Hill Democrats. But with House and Senate committees ready to start drafting a Social Security overhaul in June, partisan whining is likely to wind down. And while it is too early to know whether Bush and Congress will reach a deal, the framework for an agreement is -- surprisingly -- beginning to take shape.... Such a deal would leave both factions with something to brag about. Bush could say he engineered an historic agreement to fix the program -- and Republicans could get the issue of Social Security off their backs. Democrats could say they saved the system from GOP attack. And everyone could take credit for new savings vehicles, which would be included in a Social Security package being cobbled together by House Ways & Means Committee Chairman William Thomas (R-Calif.).... That's why insiders see a quiet consensus developing around Reform Lite. Republicans seem increasingly willing to abandon Bush-style accounts and their opposition to any tax increases. And Democrats have privately expressed a willingness to accept benefit cuts and hand Bush half a victory rather than be seen as blocking needed changes. "We are getting within striking distance of really constructive proposals," says a leading Democratic Social Security strategist.... Bush's original plan, which would have allowed workers to shift as much as one-third of their payroll tax into personal accounts, is dead. But Thomas is exploring ways to enhance savings outside of Social Security, an idea that could win support from groups such as AARP, the powerful seniors' lobby. "It's a better way to look at the problem," says AARP policy director John Rother. "But we'll have to see what the pieces look like." (Emphasis mine)

It seems that some big government Republicans are looking to "add-on" personal accounts, which is another way of saying "raising taxes on those who can least afford it." The President must stay firm on demanding Social Security reform include significant voluntary personal accounts from the existing taxes. Those of us under 30 years of age are expecting not to get much back from what we are paying into Social Security. We want some of that money in an account that WE own, not the government. Maybe the average age of 50+ in the Senate clouds their understanding of how these proposals affect the youth of America. We want and need personal accounts so that we can believe that Social Security will be there when we are their age.
Posted by Adam Doverspike on May 24, 2005 9:03 PM to Social Security Choice