Some people have tried to interpret the November election results as evidence that reformers ought to change direction on Social Security.  "[T]he only politicians who are likely to be pushing Social Security privatization are those looking for a change of career," one blogger wrote the day after the election.

But back in September, we predicted that candidates in support of personal accounts would do well in the election.  Urging refomers to explain and support their position rather than give in to attacks from trust fund "pirateers," we noted, "Those who have stood tall on the issue of personal accounts have historically fared rather well, leaving one to guess that most people really do understand that the alternative to reform is higher taxes."

Was 2006 the year that people stopped understanding the need for reform?  Was this election proof that politicians should back away from personal accounts?

The answer to both questions is absolutely not.

Of the three bills that would have allowed workers to invest part of their payroll taxes in a personal account (Ryan-Sununu, Johnson-Flake, and Kolbe-Boyd), there were a combined 24 co-sponsors up for re-election.  Of these twenty-four, 23 were re-elected.  Only one candidate -- Congresswoman Anne Northup -- lost.  

Is it time for politicians to change direction?  Yes, but only for those who still oppose personal accounts.

Comments