Nervous Nellies
The term "neoconservative" actually meant something a few years ago. Today it's a de facto synonym for anyone who's pro-war, but in its original context it typically described a disillusioned leftist, whom reality had forced to embrace a right-leaning pragmatism. This was usually characterized by a strident anti-communism and a recoiling against the excesses of the cultural left. Moreover, most neocons were still enamored of the New Deal and Great Society programs, and they never fully bought into the antistatist vein that characterized much of traditional conservatism.
William Kristol, the neocon's neocon, is showing his true colors. Once so fearless regarding Iraq, Kristol now has a case of the nervous Nellies when it comes to Social Security reform. Apparently, he's not the only one, either. Kristol is quoted by MSNBC as saying many Republicans are "bewildered why this is such a White House priority.... I am a skeptic politically and a little bit substantively."
The biggest jaw-dropper in the MSNBC piece, however, is a quote by Connecticut congressman Rob Simmons, which you have to read to believe:
Why stir up a political hornet's nest .... when there is no urgency? When does the program go belly up? 2042. I will be dead by then.
I know many people think like this, but the fact that a sitting congressman has the stones to admit it publicly is astonishing to me. If he were any more shortsighted on this issue, he'd be Paul Krugman. I suppose it's difficult to get a representative to look beyond the next election cycle, much less to the next generation, and that's why this fight will be an uphill climb.
I don't even know why I should have to explain this, but here goes. If you're lucky enough to live off a trust fund, and extrapolating current trends shows your trust fund will be depleted in a few decades, you do not wait until it is empty to take remedial action. It takes time to amass wealth and build equity.
Deep down, I think most people understand this. They're not stupid. Rather, I think Republicans are nervous because Democrats have clubbed them over the head with the Social Security issue for decades. I think the Democrats are nervous because private accounts would deprives Congress of a large chunk of taxpayer money to play with, and would also swell the ranks of the investor class, which tends to vote Republican in higher numbers than the population at large.
Neither of these reservations is grounded in the real issues, however, and that's a shame. We need an honest debate about this issue, and we need it now, not when the whole business goes belly-up.
This is certainly the best opportunity for private accounts we've ever faced, and it's very possible that such an opportunity won't come again. Republicans now control both houses of Congress and we have a Republican president who is not afraid to take political risks on the big issues. It's a chance not only to expand Bush's vision of an "ownership society," but our best chance for this administration to leave behind a genuinely conservative legacy.
Buck up, guys! Things worth doing are seldom easy.
UPDATE: Tom Maguire has been all over the Social Security debate hypocrisies.
Comments
Anyone who thinks everything is ok should ask themselves what happens in 2020 when SS starts drawing from the "trust fund". Either new debt needs to be issued (and buyers found) or taxes raised to pay for the bonds that will be cashed in because the SS surplus has already been spent through budget deficits.
Posted by: CRB | January 11, 2005 10:32 PM
2020 is around the time the surplus is projected to disappear completely. It will begin shrinking a decade sooner, however. That will have a significant negative impact on the budget, which of course will grow worse each year until the surplus turns into a deficit. The real problems will begin to be felt around 2009 or 2010.
Posted by: Barry N. Johnson | January 11, 2005 10:41 PM
As a pretty liberal guy, I'm actually in favor of privatizing. I'm for anything that increases our choices of what to do with our money. I would even propose letting us control our portion of SS withholdings (6.2%; our employers pay the other 6.2%), which is more than Bush's latest proposal, which I think is only about 2%.
If the estimates are correct, the government needs about $3B upfront to pay for this plan. I would propose eliminating the cap on earnings that are subject to SS, currently about $87,000. Currently a person making $300,000 pays no more SS than the person making $87,000.
Posted by: Tracy Miller | January 12, 2005 12:16 AM
Me too, Tracy. And I'm not sure why the SS debate has to be drawn along ideological lines. BTW, your plan sounds very similar to a proposal I heard from Lindsey Graham recently. Maybe a progressive payroll tax hike like that would help sell it to the Dems.
Posted by: Barry N. Johnson | January 12, 2005 07:25 AM
The privatizing element is just the grease that allows them to make the really needed reform: Tie future increases in payments to inflation, not cost of living as is done now.
Posted by: CRB | January 12, 2005 04:28 PM
Permanently keeping Congress's hands out of Social Security isn't the only structual change that could occur during the second term.
As I discuss at http://principledobjection.blogspot.com/2005/01/bush-legacy-part-2-durable-majority.html , Bush may change the face of American politics through simultaneous transformations of the bureaucracy, judiciary, political parties, and even the electorate.
Posted by: Principled Objector | January 19, 2005 07:33 PM