Re: Common Ground & Thank You

[National Dialogue Moderator <moderator>]

Let me concur with my colleague Senator Judd Gregg on his remarks
on this issue.  I agree wholeheartedly with everything he wrote.

The comments on finding the common ground among these various
proposals are critical for enacting long-term sustainable reform
to Social Security.  Thank you for your plea to reach out on a
bipartisan basis.

This sentiment has been expressed by many others in this forum over
the past two weeks, and I am in complete agreement -- there are
many similarities among Congressional proposals.  There are however,
significant differences among them, as well.

I believe Senator Gregg commented sometime earlier that there
already exists bipartisan Social Security reform proposals that
are worthy of serious consideration.  Both the Senate bipartisan
plan and the Kolbe-Stenholm bill are tributes to the spirit of
bipartisanship on which meaningful Social Security reform depends.
These proposals were the result of balancing various beliefs and
values that are at the core of preserving the integrity of Social
Security:  providing the best retirement security at a cost that
all generations can bear.

Given these credible bipartisan plans as a starting point, it is
my hope and the hope of many of my colleagues that President Clinton
will follow-through with his leadership pledge on this critical
issue and come to sit down and finish the nation's business to
enact fundamental Social Security reform this year.  But, as Senator
Gregg mentioned, the President has been largely silent on making
reform a priority and in reaching out to Members of Congress on
both sides of the aisle to find common ground.

I would also like to add something of a policy nature that builds
upon what Senator Gregg wrote.  Perhaps one principle we must define
as a first step is what constitutes genuine reform of Social
Security.  I for one do not desire to keep revisiting the issue of
Social Security's insolvency every 10-15 years.  In this respect,
I think any meaningful reform must meet the test of not only
explicitly measuring the system's income and outgo on an annual
cash-flow basis, but also of preserving Social Security's solvency
for 75 years AND BEYOND, and that at the end of this valuation
period the Trust Funds are rising.  Congressman Stenholm wrote of
this issue and it is very important.  Without this 75-year+ criterion,
Social Security's insolvency will be a recurring problem.  This is
sometimes called "the cliff effect" in policy circles -- because
the change of the 75-year valuation period each year drops a current
year of surpluses when benefit costs are cheaper and adds a new,
expensive 75th year of deficits.

In the way of example as to where there are significant differences
on what constitutes genuine reform, I believe heard House Minority
Leader Dick Gephardt comment not too long ago that he did not see
why 75 years was such a magic number, seeming to imply that the
President's plan of 55 years was "good enough."

While there is nothing "magic" about 75 years, it is with good
reason that we mandate by law that the Social Security Trustees
look at a 75-year horizon or something similar in longevity.  This
period encompasses essentially the entire future life span of all
current workers and beneficiaries, even the youngest current workers,
at the beginning of the 75-year period.  It also provides a projection
period long enough to illustrate the complete and mature effects
of past amendments and potential future changes to the Social
Security program.

So yes, we do have points of agreement, but there are still
significant points of disagreement.  Whatever we are able to
accomplish in the way of meaningful reform this year, we must have
President Clinton's leadership and active participation to make
Social Security our number one domestic policy priority.  I hope
that the President comes to embrace long-term Social Security reform
in a way that squares with the American people about what it means
to save the system in a fiscally responsible manner and in a way
that is fair to current and future generations.

And it is through forums like these that we are able to exchange
these ideas, have healthy debates about the issues, and hopefully
learn a little more about Social Security and how to go about saving
and strengthening the system.  I have thought long and hard about
many of the comments and ideas put forth over the past two weeks.

I would like to thank all of the participants for asking the tough
questions they did and putting forth their own ideas.  If you feel
this compelled to participate in an on-line chat such as this, I
hope you all will take your interest and ideas in this debate and
engage in similar dialogues throughout your communities.

I hope from this everyone has taken in something that will be
valuable in how they think about Social Security now and into the
future.  We cannot erase history and abolish the payroll tax or
somehow magically go back and change how we might redo the system
from the start (although it is interesting to think about if we
COULD do such a thing, would we chose a pay-as-you-go financed
system).  How the Social Security system is changed for the future
is extremely important to us all and the nation.  In thinking of
what Social Security might look like 20 or 30 years from now, I am
reminded of the words of Wilbur Cohen, one of the leaders in the
development of the Social Security program:

    "I do not believe that our present Social Security system is the
    last word, nor do I believe it should be immune to change.  On the
    contrary, I believe it can, it should, and it will change and that
    each generation should be free to remake and remold it to its needs
    and liking."

Let me thank my colleagues who served as panelists and all of their
hard work in dedicating themselves to solving what is perhaps the
most difficult of all public policy issues.  I realize that there
are areas where we all will agree to disagree.  There is no harm
in that.  Such is the cornerstone of a robust democracy such as
ours.  I look forward to similar exchanges as we work toward putting
Social Security on sound financial footing for the long-term.

Ron Gebhardtsbauer and the other moderators and ADSS and Info Ren
also deserve special thanks for bringing this effort to fruition.
I have enjoyed participating in this worthwhile effort and hope we
have an opportunity again soon to do something similar.


    Senator Rick Santorum