Social Security plans must be scrutinized

By SARA FRITZ

© St. Petersburg Times, published June 26, 2000

WASHINGTON -- As a baby-boomer, I confess I sometimes feel a twinge of annoyance whenever I hear a politician give lip service to securing the future financial solvency of Social Security -- then turn around and, instead, propose new benefits for current recipients.

Don't get me wrong. I am mighty grateful for the benefits that my parents and their contemporaries are receiving from Social Security. It has done what it was intended to do: Given them financial independence in retirement.

Nor can I quarrel with the idea of a new prescription drug benefit for current Medicare recipients or the lifting of the income ceiling for current Social Security recipients.

But I can't help wondering: When are Congress and the president going to buckle down and do something to make sure that the system is fully funded for future recipients? (Me, for example.)

For that reason, I have been pleased to see that in the 2000 presidential contest, for the first time in my memory, both candidates are talking about making improvements in the program for future recipients.

This reflects a sea change in American politics.

Until now, politicians have assumed that middle-aged voters were more concerned about immediate bread-and-butter issues. To them, retirement was a distant dream. But polls now show my contemporaries have suddenly become very, very interested in retirement security. It's amazing how a few gray hairs can change your perspective.

As you know, Texas Gov. George W. Bush has proposed to give future Social Security recipients the option of investing some of that money themselves. And Vice President Al Gore has, instead, proposed a separate government-matched savings account for future recipients with incomes of $100,000 or less to build some investment capital to help finance their retirement.

Both plans have drawbacks.

Bush's proposal has been portrayed by Gore as a risky scheme that would undermine what is supposed to be a social insurance program, not an independent investment account that could just as easily go broke as make a profit.

Furthermore, as Gore frequently points out, it is not entirely clear how Bush intends to fund this option, along with all of his other ideas, such as an across-the-board income tax cut, without returning the nation to deficit spending.

Meanwhile, Gore's proposal would create another expensive entitlement to be financed by the American taxpayers. Are we really prepared to make that kind of commitment before paying off the national debt?

The proposals for Social Security put forth by Gore and Bush are very different, to be sure, but they are both predicated upon the idea that the government ought to be providing Americans with an opportunity to increase their retirement income beyond the basic Social Security benefits.

This, too, is a new concept. The traditional philosophy behind Social Security always has been that it would serve as a supplement to private retirement income -- pensions and savings. The sources of pension and savings income were supposed to be the responsibility of American workers and employers, not the government.

But expectations for the role of government in securing retirement income seem to be rising. And both Gore and Bush are fueling these expectations.

There is no telling how much more money for retirement citizens could generate by investing their Social Security money under Bush's plan. Gore estimates that a young couple saving $20 a week under his plan could have an extra $400,000 in he bank when they retire.

I am happy that the two candidates want to do more for me in my retirement than I had expected. Still, I wish they would focus on first things first. They need to make certain that Social Security will be solvent in the decades to come before they start promising add-ons.

Gore has challenged Bush to a debate in Florida on these and other issues related to Social Security. One way or another, we all need an opportunity to weigh the pluses and minuses of both plans.

© St. Petersburg Times. All rights reserved.