Prospects for 1999 and Reply to Cry in the Wilderness

[National Dialogue Moderator <moderator>]

        Prospects for 1999 and Reply to Cry in the Wilderness

I too am not optimistic about the prospects for reform in 1999, and, while I 
agree that there is plenty of blame to go around, I would suggest that 
responsibility lies with President Clinton.  Responsible members of Congress 
have been working on reform legislation in a serious way ever since 1995, 
when Sen. Bob Kerrey of Nebraska and then-Sen. Alan Simpson of Wyoming 
developed the first bill that incorporated small (2%) personal retirement 
accounts.  Since then, numerous other bills have been introduced, some 
calling for replacing the entire social security program with large personal 
accounts and supplementing them with a new government safety net.  In the 
past 18 months, three proposals with bipartisan support have been either 
introduced into Congress or announced publicly, each of which would 
incorporate small personal retirement accounts.  (No other approach has been 
embodied in legislation and garnered bipartisan support.)

In addition, as Dermant notes (in "A Cry in the Wilderness"), in the State of 
the Union address in January of 1998, the President initiated a year-long 
"national dialogue" on social security reform and announced his plans for a 
White House conference in December and his intention to bring legislators 
together in January of this year to forge "landmark" legislation.  The 
national dialogue comprised a series of worthwhile forums around the country. 
 Two that I participated in (including one with the President last summer) 
dealt directly with the issue of personal retirement accounts.  A conference 
was held in December.

Then January came and a strange thing happened.  The President decided not to 
convene legislators to develop legislation.  Instead, he decided to offer his 
own plan, a plan built on two ideas sure to generate controversy: the 
proposal to "devote 62% of the surpluses" to saving social security (which 
was a fancy way of saying general-fund finance social security), and the 
proposal to begin investing a portion of the trust funds directly in stocks.  
Not a mention of replacing a portion of future benefit promises with personal 
retirement accounts--the only proposal on the horizon that had generated any 
interest or enthusiasm.  Not a mention of convening Congressional leaders.  
No bill ever sent to the Hill.

Since then, we've had lots of sound and fury.  The President's proposal was 
well-crafted to win a rhetorical battle, in my view, not to save social 
security.  His strong not-so-subtle message was that social security could be 
"saved" for a half century without requiring sacrifices from anyone (except 
perhaps those who were hoping for a tax cut).  This put responsible 
legislators in a tough position of having to step out in front of the 
President to make the case for spending restraints to close the long-range 
deficit and to integrate social security with a system of personal accounts.  

The campaign season is heating up now, so the prospects of a reasoned debate 
and constructive negotiations between the President and Congress are not 
bright.  Look to the campaign trail for real debate.

On a brighter note, there are members of Congress who have had the courage to 
discuss the core issues confronting social security and the ways the system 
needs to be changed to improve the well-being of working Americans.  Just a 
few of the names that come to mind are Sen. Kerrey, Cong. Jim Kolbe of 
Arizona, and Sen. Judd Gregg of New Hampshire.  Each has been promoting a 
bipartisan approach that would push the system in the right direction.  Cong. 
Porter of Illinois and Cong. Mark Sanford of South Carolina are two who 
endorse--and have been speaking out for--full-scale privatization of social 
security.

As a note of caution, if you decide to peruse what these members have had to 
say on social security reform, I'd urge you to focus on statements made 
before the 1999 State of the Union.  With some notable exceptions, their 
messages have become less direct since that time.

Carolyn Weaver