The reason people find the Social Security debate mind-boggling is that it's actually three debates.

The first is basically about numbers. It's a technical argument over how long our national retirement plan will last, and what we have to do to keep it going into the far future.

If it sounds dull, it is, unless you're (a) an actuary, or (b) somebody who plans to retire in 15 years or after. That includes the bulk of American baby boomers, their children, and grandchildren.

According to official projections, more money will start flowing out to retirees and other Social Security beneficiaries than will flow into the system via payroll taxes around 2018.

The cash-flow problem will grow progressively worse as the number of retirees continues to grow faster than the number of tax-paying workers.

You can question the projections, argue about whether and when the problem becomes a crisis, and debate various ways to fix it. That's exactly what a lot of smart actuaries, economists and others are doing.

Some favor an increase in taxes; others a cut in benefits. Still others suggest raising the retirement age or investing in stocks to balance the books over the long term.

Whatever your preference, there's little reason to believe a solution can't be worked out. It's only math, after all.

Except...

The second debate

At its second level, the Social Security debate raises fundamental issues about the kind of society we want America to be.

Do we collectively guarantee that everyone who works can live decently after they reach retirement age? Would individuals and families be stronger if they bore more responsibility for their own financial security?

What constitutes a "decent" level of retirement support? Is it fair to shift wealth from rich to poor, and from young to old? How much? And who should bear the risk of loss if the economy falters down the road?

These are big, serious questions, and the answers won't be found in an economic model or actuarial table. You need some political and philosophical values as a guide - and needless to say, everyone's ideological compass doesn't point in the same direction.

President Bush believes private Social Security accounts would make us an "ownership society." Opponents, including the AARP, say the plan would remove retirees' one guaranteed source of income. The clash of values couldn't be sharper.

But that's what democracy is for. A healthy debate over Social Security could clarify who we are and what we really want as a nation. And then we could take a vote, directly or through our elected representatives, shake hands all around and move on.

Except...

The third debate

At its third level, the Social Security debate isn't about math or philosophy. It's about pure, testosterone-fueled electoral partisanship.

At this level, math and economics are irrelevant, and even ideology isn't very important. Winning, as Vince Lombardi said, is the only thing.

For more than 50 years, Social Security has been a potent, vote-getting issue in elections all over the country. Democrats, primarily, have successfully wooed seniors by pledging to protect or enhance their government retirement benefits.

Now, for the first time, Republicans see a chance to disarm their opposition.

Conservatives believe changing Social Security is not only the quickest way to shrink the federal government; they also think it will make future generations of seniors less receptive to Democratic candidates.

This isn't some dark secret being whispered over political hotlines; Republican leaders such as U.S. Sen. Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania have said as much openly.

Moreover, Democratic partisans believe the same thing. That's why they are organizing just as furiously to block the Bush reform plan.

It's going to be a heck of a fight. But it won't be mainly about either fixing or redefining Social Security for the future.

Instead, it will be about shafting the other party. And that's a shame.

By Andrew Cassel, Inquirer Columnist, Jan. 7, 2005

Philadelphia Inquirer

Back to News in Brief