Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Fred Barnes: A Social Security Quagmire? (Here's an exit strategy for Bush)
The Weekly Standard ^ | May 2, 2005 | Fred Barnes

Posted on 04/25/2005 5:35:47 PM PDT by RWR8189

PRESIDENT BUSH NEEDS AN EXIT strategy on Social Security. With luck, he may never have to use it. There's still a chance a sweeping reform bill will pass this year. But despite Bush's valiant efforts to sell Congress and the nation on the idea of modernizing Social Security, the prospects are dim. History will surely vindicate Bush for trying to solve a serious national problem before it becomes a staggering mess. What's required now, however, is that he be ready to accept defeat in a manner that saves Republicans from losses in the 2006 election and allows him to pursue the rest of his agenda effectively.

The president has campaigned for reform with little help from congressional Republicans and in the face of demagogic hostility from Democrats. He raised public awareness of the financial abyss Social Security is falling into and the promise of personal retirement accounts. But that hasn't been enough to stir strong national support--quite the contrary. As Bush himself wrote in his 1999 campaign book, A Charge To Keep, "It's hard to win votes for massive reform unless there is a crisis." With Social Security, the crisis arrives in 2017 when the system goes into the red. That's at least two presidencies away.

With only one of the 44 Democratic senators willing to cooperate on Social Security, it's hard to see how a reform measure can pass. This is particularly true since none of the Democrats faces pressure at home to work with the president on the issue. Instead, Democrats have been able to oppose Bush's reform drive, offer no alternative, and do so with impunity. Many congressional Republicans are understandably leery of embracing the issue this year.

Meanwhile, Bush's focus on Social Security reform has exacted a political cost. The president's foreign policy has become stunningly successful and the economy is strong and growing despite soaring gas prices and a shaky stock market. Yet his job performance rating in nearly every poll is 50 percent or less. What's the reason? It's certainly not Bush's limited involvement in the Terri Schiavo case. And gas prices have been stuck at about $2.00 a gallon for only a few weeks. No, it must be Social Security.

If Bush is forced to accept defeat on Social Security, it's important he do it the right way. If he's petulant, it will only make things worse. And if he says the fight isn't over yet and he's going to try again in the next Congress to push through a reform measure, it will only make life easier for Democrats. They've become completely reactionary and have nothing to campaign on in 2006. Keeping Social Security reform alive would give them an issue to run on--or rather against.

But Bush can deny them that issue with the right exit strategy. He could say he tried his best to alert Americans to the coming crisis in Social Security, and that Democrats not only opposed him in the most partisan and irresponsible fashion possible but failed to present a plan of their own for modernizing the system. Sadly, he could add, the matter must now be left to future presidents and Congresses.

This approach has several advantages. It would spare Republicans a 2006 campaign dominated by Social Security. Most House Republicans would rather run on other issues--taxes, gay marriage, national security, judges--which are more likely to help them avoid the usual fate of a party with a president in his sixth year in office. The average numbers of seats lost by a president's party in the sixth year of his administration are, roughly, 28 in the House and 7 in the Senate.

It would also ease the strain that Bush's emphasis on Social Security has put on the conservative red states. The population of these states tends to be older and poorer than that of the liberal blue states. And it's been among lower income and older Americans that Bush's reform pitch has especially failed to catch on.

Most important, Bush could turn to issues with a brighter future. Foremost among them would be tax reform and making his already-enacted tax cuts permanent. The president's tax reform commission will issue a recommendation for radically overhauling the tax code. That could be the basis for a powerful campaign issue for Republicans, unless it were overshadowed by Social Security.

Bush campaigned last year to make his tax cuts permanent, but dropped the idea in 2005 lest it interfere with reaching a compromise on Social Security reform. By locking in the tax cuts, particularly the deep reduction in the tax on stock dividends, Bush might strengthen the stock market. Without a negative spillover effect from losing on Social Security, he would have a better chance of success on the other parts of his agenda as well.

Of course, the president may not require an exit strategy. He and his chief adviser, Karl Rove, have been amazingly successful in winning on issues where they were expected to lose. Bush's discipline and determination have reaped benefits and might again. After all, Social Security reform hasn't even reached the stage of congressional hearings yet. Still, the odds on winning are long. So the smart move now is to find a way to minimize the damage from a possible defeat.

 

Fred Barnes is executive editor of The Weekly Standard.


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Constitution/Conservatism; Editorial; Government; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: barnes; bush43; fredbarnes; socialsecurity; ssreform; weeklystandard
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-25 next last

1 posted on 04/25/2005 5:35:57 PM PDT by RWR8189
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: RWR8189

Yes, please God get off SS, it has been hurting the rest of the presidents agenda and it is going nowhere.


2 posted on 04/25/2005 5:43:10 PM PDT by jmc1969
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RWR8189
Re: the Social Security deficit, here's an exit strategy: Approve private accounts.

To pay for this pass a flat tax (or Fair Tax). Cut out the IRS Administration and sell the buildings and land they (rather We) own.

NPR. Fire them and sell the land, equipment.

Public schools. Fire them and sell the land, buildings.

Railroad regulations. Annul them and fire the bureaucrats. Then sell the building and land they operate from.

Government retirement accounts. Gone. Let them eat Social Security same as us.

Next, the United Nations...

3 posted on 04/25/2005 5:49:43 PM PDT by kcar (The UNsucks.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RWR8189

Just let the #%@& thing go bankrupt.


4 posted on 04/25/2005 5:51:48 PM PDT by Prince Caspian (Don't ask if it's risky... Ask if the reward is worth the risk)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RWR8189
If the Republican majority (Governors, House, Senate, Judiciary, and President) is unable to achieve our goals, then why did we waste our time supporting these representatives?

I must admit, unless things change rapidly, a total reevaluation of our political support may be needed.

I suggest that the insanity of the Transportation Security Agency (TSA) be used as a "litmus test" for the evaluation of the Republican majority.

The situation along our Mexican border would be my second choice as a "litmus test" for our Republican representatives.

5 posted on 04/25/2005 5:58:59 PM PDT by Hunble
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RWR8189

Ya I agree, I mean who really cares that the money over the years has been stolen from the people, I'm sure it will all end and is not indicative of what power and Government actually does with some extra cash laying around. In fact I think we should just go ahead and increase taxes now to cover the upcoming deficits I'm sure the extra money will be put to good use. Maybe to fund more ACLU lawsuits to get the Ten Commandments out of somewhere.


6 posted on 04/25/2005 5:59:58 PM PDT by Archon of the East ("universal executive power of the law of nature")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Prince Caspian
Just let the #%@& thing go bankrupt

That will never happen, it will be saved at the expense of taking away from the people for the common good, don't kid yourself

7 posted on 04/25/2005 6:02:18 PM PDT by Archon of the East ("universal executive power of the law of nature")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Prince Caspian
Just let the #%@& thing go bankrupt.

I am 50 years old as of last February. I always knew that Social Security would not be there when I retire.

I agree, let it go bankrupt!

8 posted on 04/25/2005 6:04:38 PM PDT by Hunble
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: kcar

Oh, I LIKE your ideas!

Keep em coming.

Bush doesn't have to worry about re-election and knowing Republicans they thrive on eating their own so there is no reason why he should hold back and NOT do this.


9 posted on 04/25/2005 6:05:11 PM PDT by nmh (Intelligent people recognize Intelligent Design (God).)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Prince Caspian

Let it go, but let go of my FICA payments too. And if you won't do that, at least issue the t-bill to me that you are issuing internally to yourself in the treasury and then it wouldnt be a ponzi scheme. Not one person, not the dems or GWB, have ever addressed the issue about vesting the payor's rights in those FICA payments which is as far as I am concerned the primary issue. Who gives a damn about a rate of return if you never really have any rights to a principal?


10 posted on 04/25/2005 6:15:21 PM PDT by atrocitor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Hunble

Our goals ?

Guess what ? Apparently on this issue the American people do not see 'our goals' as their goals. Total reevaluation of your political support ? Do you go into your room and sulk when you don't get your way ?


11 posted on 04/25/2005 6:15:40 PM PDT by Sam the Sham
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: RWR8189
It would also ease the strain that Bush's emphasis on Social Security has put on the conservative red states. The population of these states tends to be older and poorer than that of the liberal blue states. And it's been among lower income and older Americans that Bush's reform pitch has especially failed to catch on.

Precisely. This is precisely the reason Bush lost on SS reform. The Christian Right has been absolutely no help whatsoever to him on this issue because its membership IS older and poorer, not free market libertarians.

12 posted on 04/25/2005 6:18:38 PM PDT by Sam the Sham
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sam the Sham

It's Strategery. Social Security is now officially off the table for the 2006 and 2008 election. The RATS cannot use it because they condemned it.

If they try to bring it up, Republican candidates will say the RATS politicized it as the opposition party. It was a great move. Bush cannot run again, so whether he wins or loses the battle is irrelevant.


13 posted on 04/25/2005 6:20:12 PM PDT by EQAndyBuzz (60 votes and the world changes.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: RWR8189

I always thought that Bush should have gone hard after tax reform (fair or flat) before SS...


14 posted on 04/25/2005 6:24:00 PM PDT by THX 1138
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sam the Sham
I, like you, have been a firm Republican for more years than I wish to count. Hint: I voted for President Nixon.

The majority of American citizens have elected Republicans to represent them at all upper levels of government.

The majority of American citizens, do expect that these representatives perform the duties that they were appointed to do.

They were not given this job for their own personal benefit, or even political party, but to represent and support each and every citizen living within their region.

15 posted on 04/25/2005 6:24:43 PM PDT by Hunble
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: EQAndyBuzz
It's Strategery. Social Security is now officially off the table for the 2006 and 2008 election. The RATS cannot use it because they condemned it.

Was HillaryCare off the table for the 1994 election ?

If they try to bring it up, Republican candidates will say the RATS politicized it as the opposition party. It was a great move. Bush cannot run again, so whether he wins or loses the battle is irrelevant.

Politicized it ? What happens in Washington that isn't political ?

16 posted on 04/25/2005 6:25:00 PM PDT by Sam the Sham
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Hunble

No party is given a blank check. Especially on red button issues like Social Security.

Face facts. The overwhelming majority of the American people support the Social Security program and distrusted "private accounts" as a trick by radical free market libertarian types to bankrupt it.

This issue split the GOP along class lines. Older, poorer Americans, who tend to be Religious Right, opposed SS reform. Free market libertarian types supported it.


17 posted on 04/25/2005 6:28:04 PM PDT by Sam the Sham
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: RWR8189
Why in the world should President Bush give a rat's behind about republican congresspeople that have to run in 2006?They've proven to be totally gutless and useless to him. He should let them blow wind. If we are all lucky, they won't win re election.
18 posted on 04/25/2005 6:33:40 PM PDT by paul51 (11 September 2001 - Never forget)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sam the Sham
This issue split the GOP along class lines. Older, poorer Americans, who tend to be Religious Right, opposed SS reform. Free market libertarian types supported it.

Sadly, perhaps you are correct in your evaluation of the American public.

Some Americans that thought the money would always be there, and did not want any change in the current system.

Wise American politicians realized that the money would not be there when the "Baby Boomer" generation reached retirement, and did everything they could to divert the citizen taxes toward this future problem.

Wise American politicians also realized that a balance must be maintained, or the Social Security tax increases would cripple the economy. With a crippling of the economy, there would have been a devastating reduction of Social Security tax revenues.

This is rather obvious, since Social Security taxes are a percentage of the American economy.

This is the legacy of Ronald Regan!

19 posted on 04/25/2005 6:43:10 PM PDT by Hunble
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: RWR8189

Bump to read later


20 posted on 04/25/2005 6:45:47 PM PDT by sonofatpatcher2 (Texas, Love & a .45-- What more could you want, campers? };^)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-25 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson