Get serious on Social Security

By A TIMES EDITORIAL
Published January 16, 2008

One Iowa caucus participant said she settled on Republican Mike Huckabee after seeing him play the guitar. Huckabee does wield a mean bass for a Baptist preacher, but we wonder if that voter and others know where the former Arkansas governor or any candidate stands on Social Security.

Admittedly, as a campaign issue, entitlement spending evokes all the excitement of novocaine. Yet consider: The federal government spends as much on Social Security as it does on the military, even with the nation at war. There would be nothing wrong with that choice of priorities if the retirement and disability program were financially sustainable. They aren't.

One reason voters may not have focused on the issue is that the candidates avoid an honest discussion of it, with a few notable exceptions. In the past, it hasn't paid to be honest about Social Security because there are only two solutions - raise taxes to support promised benefits or reduce those benefits in some way- and both are unpopular. With the baby boomers starting retirement this year, however, it is irresponsible for a person who would be president to hedge on the subject.

Democrat Hillary Clinton admits Social Security must be made sound, but she goes on to rule out an increase in the payroll tax cap (currently incomes up to $102,500 are taxed) or any reduction in benefits, including raising the retirement age. "I'm not putting anything on the proverbial table until we move toward fiscal responsibility," Clinton said, nonsensically, in a debate. How can there be a compromise if nothing is being offered?

Her main opponent, Barack Obama, is more forthcoming on the subject. "We should be willing to do anything that will strengthen the system, to make sure that we are being true to those who are already retired, as well as young people in the future," Obama said. He favors raising the payroll tax cap as a first option, a position that Clinton attacks as a tax increase on middle-class families. Obama counters that only a small percent of workers earn more than the current income cap ($102,500 in 2008). But Obama also shies away from any talk of adjusting benefits, a restriction that could prove too narrow for a real fix.

Likewise, John Edwards, whose campaign is losing altitude by the day, rules out any benefit reduction or increase in retirement age. He would also raise the tax cap, though he would create an untaxed "protective zone" between the current cap and incomes up to $200,000, his vision, apparently, of the middle class.

As with a number of important issues, Republican Mike Huckabee is vague on the subject. He flirts with the idea of individual accounts to supplement (or more likely supplant) Social Security, an idea that was rejected by Americans as "privatization" when President Bush proposed it. Rudy Giuliani says he favors a bipartisan fix, then rules out any tax increase and speaks favorably of individual accounts, which all of the Democratic candidates reject. Given Giuliani's hard-line partisan past, an amicable compromise will require more give-and-take.

Mitt Romney rules out a payroll tax increase and embraces individual accounts, too, but he shows a little more flexibility. Romney would extend the life of Social Security by slowing the growth of future benefits for wealthy Americans, and says extending the retirement age "is not attractive." Without details, it is difficult to judge the effectiveness of his proposal.

Even straight-shooter John McCain equivocates on this issue. While he calls for a bipartisan effort to fix Social Security and "straight talk" with Americans, he rules out a payroll tax increase, calling it "off the table." McCain has a good record of working with Democrats, but he (like Clinton) needs to put something on the table before progress can be made.

Maybe voters don't want the bad news about Social Security and Medicare - an even more nettlesome problem considering the runaway costs of medical care. Yet the longer we let candidates skirt the hard issues, the longer a solution will be delayed. We can't avoid the looming crisis by looking away.

[Last modified January 16, 2008, 01:08:00]