His central role in Social Security debate could cost him politically.

No matter how you cut it, Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum will be in the thick of Capitol Hill's debate over changing Social Security.

Santorum chairs the Social Security panel on the Finance Committee, which has jurisdiction over the program. As the No. 3 Republican in the Senate, he's also the point man for coordinating the Senate GOP's message on the issue with the White House and the House of Representatives.

And, Santorum is preparing to run for a third term in 2006, meaning anything he does with the popular entitlement program could be fodder for his Democratic opponents.

Political analyst G. Terry Madonna said Santorum, who's been burned on the issue before, could reap credit for being willing to do something about Social Security's long-term insolvency problems. Or not.

''There's a certain amount of political courage in this,'' said Madonna, director of the Center for Politics and Public Affairs at Franklin & Marshall University. ''There's also considerable political risk for him.''

Republicans believe that adding personal accounts to Social Security will attract younger voters and minorities by offering them the promise of greater long-term savings and a better rate of return than the traditional program.

But seniors, a dominant voting bloc in Pennsylvania, don't like the idea as much. AARP, the largest lobbying group for seniors, is running ads opposed to the accounts.

Santorum nearly lost his first Senate race in 1994 when he said the retirement age should jump to 70, providing Democratic incumbent Harris Wofford with a devastating video clip for a stretch-drive commercial. But Santorum rallied to win.

Despite the scare, Santorum has continued to talk about the system's long-term financing shortfall and to press for personal accounts. He said his goals are to minimize tax increases and benefit reductions while maximizing Social Security's long-term solvency.

Like President Bush, Santorum says current retirees and those near retirement should get the benefits they've earned. But his willingness to consider tax increases runs counter to the principles Bush laid out for reform...

Without additional revenues, establishing personal accounts could add $2 trillion to the national debt at a time when the overall federal budget is mired in deficits.

But without some changes, the system will eventually become insolvent as fewer workers struggle to support a booming retirement population.

Under current projections, the payroll taxes that fuel Social Security will fall short of covering benefits in 2018, after which the system will have to redeem U.S. Treasury bonds in its trust fund. Those would run out in 2042.

Bush has been building a case for private accounts by arguing that the system is in ''crisis.'' Critics of the president's plans say that's not the case and that Social Security can be put on solid footing without carving out personal accounts from the traditional system.

''This type of rhetoric seems clearly designed to leave the impression that younger workers will be left with no benefits despite years of contributions. That's false,'' said Robert Greenstein of the liberal Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.

Greenstein points out that even after the trust fund is exhausted, payroll taxes would still cover 70 percent of benefits. Making smaller changes now to increase revenue or slow growth, he said, could cover the gap.

Greenstein argues that personal accounts won't improve long-term solvency. He said the White House acknowledged as much in a memo that calls for a change in the way the benefit level is calculated to make the system solvent.

An average wage earner retiring in 2042 would receive 36 percent of preretirement earnings under current law, but only 27 percent if benefits are indexed to price increases rather than wage increases, as is done now. The cuts would get deeper over time assuming prices continue to rise slower than wages.

Santorum didn't endorse that change, but said Congress has to slow the growth of benefits to save the system.

''I would say to future retirees that benefits should not be going up at a time when the solvency of the system and our ability to pay benefits is going down,'' Santorum said. ''The current level of increases is higher than inflation, and what I think we've guaranteed seniors … is that we would give you inflation increases.''

Asked about raising the retirement age, Santorum said it probably isn't necessary to raise the age at which retirees receive full benefits, but that it might be worth considering incentives so that fewer workers take early retirement.

Santorum, in fact, was reluctant to advance any particular proposal, saying ''all it does is give my enemies political hay and doesn't solve the problem.''

By Jeff Miller, The Morning Call,  Jan 18, 2005

Back to Home