Now Citizen-Journal Has Its Own Social Security Debate...

Posted by: Good Samaritan
on April 06, 2005 @ 02:08 PM EST

Audi Partem Alteram answers my latest post on SS (which, in turn, was a response to one of his). I call that a debate! Who ever said CJ was just a bunch of conservatives patting each other on the back?

APA's post, titled "A Plurality isn't Enough," concludes:

There is a problem, and a mere plurality of support among the age cohort with the lowest voter turnout is insufficient to mask it.

We're not talking about a plurality just among the young, but a 44%-40% plurality of the entire population, as reported in the same article that APA himself linked to. If you don't believe me, follow the link, look for the graph "Opinion on Private Investment Accounts," and compare the numbers for "Favor" and "Oppose." Meanwhile, another poll show not only plurality, but majority support for private accounts: MORE...

Among those under age 55, fully 77 percent say they are either very or somewhat concerned that Social Security will lack the funds to pay their full benefits when they retire.

When asked about the proposal for personal investment accounts, 39 percent of Americans say they think the accounts would be voluntary, but 12 percent incorrectly think the accounts are mandatory. Moreover, almost half (49 percent) are either unsure or say they haven't heard enough to say how the accounts would work.

Even so, a 60 percent majority says they favor giving individuals the choice to invest a portion of the contributions and 28 percent oppose. Support for investment accounts is highest among those under age 30 (76 percent), though a 56 majority of those over age 55 say they favor giving individuals the choice to invest.

APA quotes Senator Grassley saying that the grass roots isn't pushing legislators to move forward with reform. Maybe not. But there's no rule that says politics should always consist of hand-to-mouth appeasement of special interests. Sometimes pols should take far-sighted measures for the sake of the greater good.

Hesitant Republicans should pause for a moment and reflect on Barry Goldwater. When everything seemed to be going pretty well, he saw trouble ahead, and "hammered out a warning to the brothers and the sisters all over this land" (to use the language of the times). He was humiliated at the polls, but he sowed the seeds of ideas that brought Reagan to power in 1980 and have led the conservative movement from strength to strength ever since. Social Security reform is not hara-kiri. It asks Republicans to show a bit of faith in their principles, even if far less than Goldwater. We might win this year. We might sow ideas that will win out later on. Either way, Republicans should do the right thing now, and navigate the politics later.

E-mail this entry to a friend.

[Previous entry: "Same People, Different Targets"] [Next entry: "You say potato"]