This will be the year for arguing, yelling, marching, debating and thinking about the future of Social Security, the biggest and most popular of all federal government programs. President Clinton pushed the issue to the forefront of politics by proclaiming "Save Social Security First," a carefully wrought but confusing slogan.

It simply means that the President is telling Congress, "Don't cut taxes or increase federal spending until you decide what to do about assuring Social Security's long-range solvency." The phrase is aimed at making Social Security the prime issue for discussion among both Washington policy makers and citizens throughout the country.

Behind the slogan are some budget numbers. The overall federal budget is in balance for the first time in 30 years, but only because the total includes $75 billion in surplus Social Security payroll taxes. Critics of this practice have long charged that using Social Security payroll revenue in budget calculations masks the actual size of federal spending. There won't be a true budget surplus for a decade. Thus, there is no extra money to pump into the Social Security fund. Also, any Social Security fix still awaits tough and unpopular choices.

If the surplus grows, it will reduce the debt of the U.S. government in the future, and the government "will be better able to meet the needs of the Social Security system," Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin said recently. Therefore, Social Security gets helped only indirectly.

The Clinton Administration isn't offering any plan to select among the tough choices that must be made to fix Social Security. Instead, the Administration wants a lively discussion throughout the year, leading to a White House conference in December and a sit-down in January where the President and Congressional leaders will develop a bipartisan plan. The presidential slogan is a call to action rather than a blueprint to solve the problem.

Social Security faces its greatest challenge because of the boomer generation, the 76 million Americans born in the years 1946 through 1964. The oldest of them become eligible for full Social Security benefits in the year 2012, when they turn 66. The Social Security trust fund will be exhausted by 2030, although payroll taxes from workers at that time will still finance 77% of the expected benefits. There's no need to panic: The program isn't going into the red for a long time. But the nation needs to act soon to head off more drastic steps, such as massive tax increases or steep cuts in benefits.

As the discussion intensifies, lots of ideas will be coming up for debate. AFL-CIO president John Sweeney, for example, has said Congress should consider boosting the revenues from payroll taxes as a first step. The current tax rate imposes worker and employer contributions of 6.2% each paid on the first $68,400 in salary. The National Council of Senior Citizens, which includes retired union workers, says that eliminating the wage ceiling--levying taxes on all salary--would close about two-thirds of Social Security's long-range financing gap.

A significant tax hike, though, would never be approved by a Republican Congress, and President Clinton probably would also reject it. Another proposal would extend Social Security to newly hired state and local employees, a step that would bring in substantial revenues. The new workers would be paying taxes for decades before they collected benefits. However, many state and local governments that already operate their own pensions would oppose expansion of the federal program.

Raising the retirement age for full benefits--now age 65 and scheduled to rise in stages to 67 by the year 2027--could close most of the funding gap. Robert J. Myers, one of the original developers of the Social Security system and its chief actuary for 24 years, has proposed raising the age gradually to 70, and then to 75 by the year 2072. As people live longer, healthier lives, a higher retirement age is appropriate, he contends. Yet critics say that each year retirement is delayed is the equivalent of a 5% cut in benefits. Also, conservative voices, including a recent report by the Heritage Foundation in Washington, D.C., say that a higher retirement age would place a special burden on African Americans, because they have a shorter life expectancy than the white population.

Proposals for more substantive changes in Social Security are coming from some Republican members of Congress, from private economists and from citizens groups. Some advocates call for 1% of Social Security taxes to go into individual accounts; others suggest 2%, 3% or more for these private accounts. A detailed plan offered last year by some members of the Advisory Council on Social Security called for establishing an individual account with 5 percentage points taken from the worker's 6.2% payroll tax.

The appeal of these accounts will be very strong among younger voters, those in their 20s and 30s, who are deeply skeptical about the future of Social Security. These private investment accounts are alluring, because they offer the chance to build a nest egg. Critics say the attraction could turn sour if the stock market crashes. Furthermore, the cost of maintaining 140 million individual accounts, one for each worker, could eat deeply into any profits.

Each of the ideas being floated is complicated. For every enthusiastic supporter of any proposal, there is a scornful opponent. Let the debates begin.

Robert A. Rosenblatt, a veteran Washington correspondent for the Los Angeles Times, regularly contributes this column to Aging Today.

Return to top