- The Washington Times - Tuesday, March 2, 2004

Federal Reserve Board Chairman Alan Greenspan did the Democratic Party an enormous favor last week. He gave them an issue on which they can beat President Bush in November, regardless of who their nominee is. No wonder liberal columnist E.J. Dionne Jr. titled his column, “Grateful to Greenspan.”

What Mr. Greenspan did that made liberals so happy is speak the truth about Social Security — the very definition of a Washington gaffe — by saying benefits will have to be cut. Those that have been promised are simply too expensive for society to afford. Fortunately for Mr. Greenspan, he is in a job from which he cannot be fired.

Speaking before the House Budget Committee on Feb. 25, Mr. Greenspan made the undeniable point that under current law Social Security benefits will rise sharply as a share of the gross domestic product. This is mostly a function of demographics, especially the rapid aging of the Baby Boom generation, whose oldest member turns 62 in 2008 — just four years from now.

If Baby Boomers choose early retirement at age 62 in the percentages of earlier generations — about half — we are going to see a bulge in Social Security spending very shortly indeed. Of course, to the extent people retire at 62, rather than waiting until 65 or later, they are in a sense doing Social Security a favor because they will get permanently lower benefits than if they waited. Benefits are much higher at age 65 and continue to rise until age 69 as long as benefits are delayed.

As Mr. Greenspan correctly noted, there are only two ways of paying for Social Security in the long run: either benefits must be reduced below what have currently been promised or taxes must rise. The money necessary to pay all future benefits is so much — $10.5 trillion, according to economists Jagadeesh Gokhale and Kent Smetters — there is just no way it can be financed solely out of higher taxes. Tax increases of that magnitude would be too debilitating to the economy.

Said Mr. Greenspan, “Tax rate increases of sufficient dimension to deal with our looming fiscal problems arguably pose significant risks to economic growth and the revenue base.”

For this reason, Mr. Greenspan argued the funding gap be addressed largely on the spending side. He suggested two options. First would be to fix the Consumer Price Index, which is used to adjust Social Security benefits for inflation. Most economists believe it overstates the true rate of inflation, thereby giving retirees an unjustified bonus increase in their benefits.

Mr. Greenspan’s second option is to further raise the retirement age, already scheduled to rise from 65 to 67 over the next several years. Most Baby Boomers will, in fact, have to wait until age 66 to receive full benefits. Raising the retirement age more is justified by increasing lifespans and would have no impact on current retirees or those nearing retirement. But it would do a great deal to stabilize the Social Security system, especially if the qualifying age for Medicare also is raised.

Despite the modesty of these suggestions, Democrats were quick to denounce them. They are, no doubt, preparing advertisements targeted at the elderly, heavily emphasizing that Mr. Greenspan is a lifelong Republican.

George W. Bush will be put in the difficult position of either repudiating Mr. Greenspan, whom he has already pledged to reappoint to the Federal Reserve Board, or allowing Democrats to frighten the elderly — a potent voting bloc — into thinking their benefits will be cut if Mr. Bush is re-elected. Sadly, such scare tactics have worked in the past.

Mr. Bush has often promised to shift Social Security toward a more voluntary system, by allowing younger workers to save a portion of their payroll taxes in private accounts, as many other countries now do. However, he has never put forward a plan to do this, and I doubt he ever will.

According to internal administration memoranda recently released by journalist Ron Suskind, author of a recent book of about former Treasury Secretary Paul O’Neill, there is serious question whether Mr. Bush really understands what he has proposed or could defend it effectively in a debate. (The memos are available at https://www.ronsuskind.com/.)

In short, Democrats have a golden opportunity to demagogue the Social Security issue, and I believe they will. I only hope Republicans don’t immediately retreat on the need for reform or throw Mr. Greenspan to the wolves in their haste to avoid Democratic attacks. Better to use this as an opportunity to explain the truth to the American people and possibly win an electoral mandate for reform in the fall.

As they say, the best defense is a good offense.

Bruce Bartlett is senior fellow with the National Center for Policy Analysis and a nationally syndicated columnist.

Copyright © 2018 The Washington Times, LLC. Click here for reprint permission.

The Washington Times Comment Policy

The Washington Times welcomes your comments on Spot.im, our third-party provider. Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.


Click to Read More and View Comments

Click to Hide