Mr. Johnson and morale boosting

[National Dialogue Moderator <moderator>]

Mr. Johnson's latest posts (as his earlier ones) display the sort of
constructive attitude that is more greatly needed in the political debate over
Social Security.

    I too agree that Social Security reform would be beneficial to both parties.
I do not believe that either of the major parties profit when we fail to solve
problems, and simply attempt to blame the other for the impasse.

    I would stress that my own efforts have been earnestly in the service of
such compromise.  The bipartisan Commission on Retirement Policy, which I
chaired with Senator Breaux, Congressman Kolbe, and Congressman Stenholm, heard
from a great diversity of viewpoints.  Although our membership included both
those who would like to see greater advance funding, and those who had larger
concerns about personal accounts, we reached our 
"2% solution" unanimously as a compromise between competing viewpoints.  This
plan did not represent the views of any one member of the Commission, and indeed
was a middle ground between opposing approaches.

    After we introduced our proposal and received considerable bipartisan
support, we experienced the need to compromise again. This year, we entered
negotiations with other sponsors of reform proposals -- including Senators
Kerrey, Moynihan, Santorum, and many others.  Although there are now seven
cosponsors of our bipartisan plan, we have elements in the plan that represent
the most creative thinking not only of the chief cosponsors, but of several
others that we engaged in talks.  We attempted to find the best compromise
solutions between opposing views concerning carve-out vs add-on, raise the wage
cap or do not raise it, and other issues that have made a reform solution so
elusive.

    We have further invited anyone to participate who is willing to talk
seriously about the choices that are necessary to get the system towards a
reasonable cash-flow basis and to provide a fair deal for all birth cohorts and
demographic groups.  Some other legislators showed up for some initial talks,
but balked when the discussions turned to substantive repairs to the current
system.  There is still a sizeable contingent at both ends of Pennsylvania
Avenue who wishes to make the representation that nothing really needs to be
done at all, other than a few accounting changes to mask the problem, and this
places reformers in a position where there explicit choices to shore up the
system seem gratuitous or unnecessary, and contain additional political risks.  

    The President's role is absolutely critical, and we have done our best to
assist in eliminating the barriers to his participation in a bipartisan
solution.  Rumors are floated on almost a daily basis that either he will work
with his political base to advance a proposal that simply commits trillions in
future general revenues to meet skyrocketing tax burdens, or will on the other
hand cut a deal with Republicans to enact personal accounts, but no ot6her
substantive reforms of the underlying system.  These rumors often produce a
backlash from those who feel that they will be "cut out" from any such deal. 
One of our chief intentions in working with a large bipartisan group was to
change this dynamic, to create a bipartisan forum for negotiations, where no
party feels that they have not been represented at the table.  We want to make
it safer for the President to engage in substantive discussions with a
bipartisan group in Congress, without being accused of selling out either party.

    But we will still need leadership from the President and courage on the part
of members of Congress.  The representation made in the President's State of the
Union address that a series of accounting transfers would fix the system's
problems did not convey accurately to the American public the nature of the
financing imbalances that will begin to occur in the years from 2014 and beyond.
 The Congressional Research Service found that the President's proposal would
not appreciably change the balance between the system's annual revenues and its
outlays, and more than $1 trillion in new spending outlays annually would be the
consequence of issuing these transfers, by 2040.  That critical information is
often left out of press-oriented statements that we are simply going to "save
the surplus for Social Security" and all will be well.  As my participation in
this forum demonstrates, I believe that the costs of both change and the status
quo must be spelled out in detail for the American public.  Whatever values they
may seek to bear upon a legislative negotiating process will be advanced by
having the most complete information available about the challenges before us.

    In sum, I agree that reform must be bipartisan, and reflect compromise on
all sides.  Our proposal is the end result of months of such talks between
legislators on both sides of the aisle who have been willing to forthrightly
address the trade-offs that must be made.  Though we are not yet a majority, I
do believe that an increasing number out in the press and the public are
"getting it" that the problem won't simply go away by doing, effectively,
nothing.  Although there is not a Social Security expert writing for every
newspaper, many journalists are starting to notice that some plans don't seem to
make any difficult choices at all, whereas others spell them out, and that there
must be fiscal consequences of taking either position.  As they ask more
questions about the costs of each approach, these consequences gradually become
better understood.

    I would close by thanking you for your participation in this forum and
expressing my hope that you will continue to be involved in discussing this
critical issue.

    Senator Judd Gregg