Sam Says A Political Commentary

Author: Sam Wilson

The White House and its allies like to talk about how they want to "save," "strengthen" and "reform" Social Security. I find that interesting considering a leaked, internal White House memo written by Karl Rove deputy Paul Wehner.

Most of the memo goes over privatization talking points, but in the call-to-arms conclusion, Wehner writes, "For the first time in six decades, the Social Security battle is one we can win." Social Security has been a "battle" for 60 years?

I did not know that. I thought this sudden urge to rip apart the system and remake it was to "save" it, not to win some political battle older than my parents.

But when you look at the facts, Wehner's little sentence starts to make a bit more sense. Social Security is not in a crisis, but for a while the White House insisted it was.

The White House says that private investment accounts will "strengthen" the program, but the strength of the program comes from the fact that it is social, not private. The Bush administration would have us believe that private accounts will also save the program from insolvency in some 40 years.

But they won't. Insolvency depends on how much money goes in and out of the program. Raising taxes and/or cutting benefits are the only way to save it from insolvency.

So, the White House's rhetoric does not match the reality of the situation.

But, given the reality that Social Security is in no crisis, and only faces long term problems which it will always face, why is the administration insisting that a massive overhaul is needed?

That answer is where Wehner starts to make sense. Since its inception, conservatives have hated Social Security on ideological grounds - it increases the size of the government and demands taxes. In 1936, Alf Landon campaigned against Franklin Roosevelt calling Social Security a "hoax," and saying the tax dollars were "wasted." In 1964, Barry Goldwater commented that the program, "perhaps should be abolished."

No pragmatic reasons exist for privatizing the program, only ideological ones. The president's rhetoric is very pragmatic though. Social Security is a wildly popular and extremely successful government program. People like it. Thus, the rhetoric for gutting it has to sound as though the alternatives are unacceptable. The people are not as ideological as the administration, so arguments against the program simply because it is a huge government program are doomed to fail.

This is the first time the GOP controls both houses of Congress when the President and Vice President do not have to run for reelection. Thus, they attacked the so-called "third-rail" of American politics. This is the first time in 60 years the ideological conservatives have the potential to dismantle a practical program.

The current Social Security battle is not about reality, it is about ideology. That is why the Democrats and more pragmatic Republicans need to stand rigid against privatization - no surrender, no capitulation and no compromise. Government succeeds through practicality, ideology destroys it.