The Associated Press wrote last week about Senator Obama's Social Security reform plans, criticizing the candidate for "providing few details on basic questions." This criticism is well-deserved, though the AP could just as easily have written the same thing about Senator McCain. Thus far, both candidates have been frustratingly vague on the issue.
One reason to target Obama may be that he went out of his way to make Social Security reform an issue during the Democratic primaries. Back before the Iowa caucus, Obama was very clear that he -- in contrast to Senator Clinton -- had a specific plan to fix Social Security: eliminate the payroll tax cap for those making over $250,000 a year.
Once people began to crunch the numbers, though, it turned out that a payroll tax cap elimination was an expensive way to address a small portion of the problem. (In truth, the SSA had done the math long before Obama came out with "his" plan, which was the same one advocated by Senator Edwards.)
When word of this got out, Obama's policy folks changed some of the numbers to make the tax increase less burdensome. The result, of course, is that the current plan fixes even less of the problem than the original proposal.
Which leads to a question: If fixing Social Security for our generation is so important to Obama (as it was back in Iowa), then why does his current plan address less than a quarter of the shortfall?
As mentioned, Senator McCain should also offer more details. So far we know that he supports personal accounts as well as benefit cuts, but what exactly does that mean? Progressive indexing? Raising the retirement age?
Restoring long-term solvency to Social Security will necessitate leadership on several fronts, but it would be useful to voters if Obama and McCain were each to explain -- at least in the hypothetical -- which options he could support.
S4 hosted about 100 high-schoolers that are participating in the National Youth Leadership Conference (NYLC) this summer. The visits took place on July 9, July 16 and July 21. The conference brings together young students from all over the country to engage with top policy-makers in Washington D.C.
As part of the conference's on-site visit, S4's team of staff and interns spoke with these young leaders about Social Security. Our staff also made presentations on S4's grassroots model that has been implemented on 350 campuses as well as the other efforts taken to promote awareness and action. 'RockStar' awards were handed out to the participants that displayed exemplary knowledge of key Social Security facts.
S4 interns enjoyed this opportunity to interact with these students and answer their questions about the issue. And the young guests too were delighted with their candid responses, as well as the t-shirts that we gave them. Pictures from the meetings can now also be viewed in S4's gallery.
Students for Saving Social Security, the nation's largest youth organization dedicated to reforming Social Security, today reacted to the news that the Center for American Progress, Rock the Vote and other youth organizations are misrepresenting our generation's views on personal accounts.
For starters, a recent economic survey by the Center for American Progress found that 74 percent of young people support personal accounts, but the organization then buried this statistic near the end of its survey report.
Titled "The Progressive Generation: How Young Adults Think About the Economy," the May 2008 survey sought to portray young people as broadly supportive of initiatives backed by the organization. A glaring exception to this portrayal was our generation's support for personal accounts, a finding not mentioned in the survey summary.
Instead, the authors buried near the end of the report that "Social Security is perhaps the one issue where Millennials [sic] views are not so progressive." The authors then proceeded to discount Millennials' support of personal accounts based on our age. The Center for American Progress did not use age to discount any of its other survey results.
"There is a clear implication that we are too young to understand the issue," said Jo Jensen, the executive director of Students for Saving Social Security. "Why ask young people what we think if you don't want to hear our answers?”
The buried statistic was recently dug up by reform opponent Michael Connery, a youth activist who blogs at The Nation. Connery used the statistic to argue that "progressive" organizations such as Rock the Vote should avoid discussing Social Security until after the Presidential election.
Specifically, Connery warned Rock the Vote against “engaging conservatives on the issue,” which would suggest that Rock the Vote has taken a political stance that is something other than conservative. Though Rock the Vote pledges to "tell it like it is," the group reneged on its commitment to participate in a youth entitlement conference just three days after the Connery article.
"Is Rock the Vote now openly partisan?" Jensen asked. "If not, how can Rock the Vote oppose something that 74 percent of young people support?"
In preparation for Georgia’s Senatorial primary election on July 15, the Atlanta Journal-Constitution asked all the candidates for their plans on solving the looming Social Security crisis.
The Republican incumbent, Saxby Chambliss, has come out in strong support of personal accounts because he sees the importance of protecting benefits for today's seniors as well as future generations. Chambliss “will not support any proposal that does not give a 100 percent guarantee that current and future beneficiaries will receive their benefits.”
Allen Buckley, the Libertarian challenger, suggests a taking the surpluses Congress is currently using to fund other projects and investing them in traditional pension assets. As an incentive for returns, money managers would be compensated based on returns. He also suggests a “7/11 plan,” which basically either raises the tax to 7 percent, or cuts benefits by 11 percent. Any surpluses under the 7/11 plan would be invested as described in his original plan.
The five Democratic challengers all have a very similar stance on “fixing” the problem: rasise taxes, cut benefits and increase the retirement age so that even fewer people live to get back any of their money. Impressively, the candidates all agree that in 1950, 16 workers supported each worker, and that in a few short years, it will only be two. The problem is that they think Band-Aid fixes like raising taxes and the retirement age will overcome this deficit.
Recently John McCain showed an immense amount of support for our generation by pledging to take on entitlement reform. McCain has vowed to balance the budget within four years as president and completely overhaul Social Security and Medicare.
This is a positive move for him, and it's good to see that despite their differences, both McCain and Obama are committed to fixing Social Security.
If you want to learn about the differences between the candidates' Social Security reform plans, here is an article from the Washington Post.
The Telegraph's Alex Singleton discusses the current state of UK's social security program and how Brown's opposition to personal accounts will lead to detrimental effects on the overall society in this article.
The Presidential candidates are obviously not looking to tackle the issue of Social Security in any great detail before the November election. I'm glad that Congress is aware of this and has begun discussing possible policy solutions.
Whether you agree with Congressman Paul Ryan's bill or not, it is important that entitlement reform gets attention from politicians and the media as we head into the next President's term. Ryan himself says that the purpose of his bill was to "jump in the pool first to get everyone else to come in and go swimming with me." And swim they did! Congressman Flake’s bi-partisan “SMART Act” has kept people talking about Social Security reform since last November, when it was first introduced.
Though significant reform is unlikely before January, we need to keep the issue in the public consciousness. Lest we forget, every day we put off reform increases the bill to future generations.
