Stephen Moore is illustrative of the most troubling issue facing those who want to see Social Security reformed. They know they have a losing message, but they just can't bring themselves to change it. Yesterday I quoted from an article by Moore that appears in the Weekly Standard, which argues that reform is probably a lost cause for 2005, and gives advice on how to regroup and wrest ultimate victory from defeat. In this article Moore's analysis was sound, pragmatic and firmly rooted in political reality. Sadly, Moore was unable to stick with it.
In the article "Senate Social Security Sellout", Moore and Peter Ferrara again revert to the language that has proven to be a political non-starter. Incensed at Republican Senators eager to address the issue of solvency rather than allow nothing to be done, the writers make the familiar gripes. The rate of return on Social Security is too low (and will be even lower if the Republican Senator's compromise is adopted). Taxes can't possibly be raised. And so on. Despite proclaiming that Social Security reform is losing, Moore cannot bring himself to amend his language.
The people that are swayed by these arguments have long since joined the ranks of those clamoring for reform. The political support for sweeping reform simply does not exist. As Newt Gingrich observed last month: “If I tell you that in 11 years you’re going to need a new roof, you’re probably going to say, ‘OK, let’s talk in 10 and a half years.” A better argument is needed, not more of the same.
Replies: 1 Comment
Posted by:
Nathan Smith
On Wednesday, April 13th
Do you think a worthwhile reform is possible without private accounts? The bottom line is that our savings rate is extremely low, and this is in large part a result of the pay-as-you-go pension system. A shift to prefunding is crucial to the health of the economy. And prefunding must involve private accounts unless we want to have the government investing in the stock market. There's only one right answer here: Private accounts. There are a lot of reasons the public might be reluctant to accept this reality (though the polls show that they are less reluctant than is the political class). Oh well. There's nothing for it but to keep explaining, to keep pushing, to keep trying until the message gets through.
What's your counter-story? To stick with a pay-as-you-go system forever, undermining the savings rate, perpetuating the inter-generational tug-of-war for resources, and running into periodic crises? No thanks.
