I am buoyed by the current Social Security debate because it has somewhat restored my confidence in our collective ability to raise issues based on the facts.
Unlike the failed opposition to Bush's rush to war in Iraq, the questions raised in the Social Security conversation have placed a dagger into the heart of one of the president's central arguments: that privatization will shore up Social Security's current pay-as-you-go system.
Such a rationale is now rendered DOA.
Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan, a proponent of private accounts, recently testified before Congress, acknowledging that individual accounts do not address the challenges facing the Social Security system over the next 75 years.
In fact, privatization would place an additional burden because workers who opt for accounts would divert a portion of their payroll taxes away from the current system.
I know of no economist who argues the best way to close a financial gap is to take away additional money.
Since the president's State of the Union address, even the White House has begun to acknowledge that privatization would not fix Social Security's financial problems.
Now that we are moving away from the hyperbole of "Dr. Feelgood's Quick Fix Elixir," we must acknowledge, as Greenspan pointed out to Congress, that every realistic option carries some risk.
Realistic option No. 1: increase the payroll tax rate.
This option is not viable, according to the president. Currently, 12.4 percent of one's salary up to $90,000 goes into Social Security, with employer and employee each paying half.
The current cap places a larger burden on low-income workers. Raising the cap to $200,000 would therefore go far in aiding the current system.
The downside is that it could place a larger burden on small businesses that create the largest percentages of jobs in the country, placing an additional drain on our already tenuous economy.
Realistic option No. 2: raise the retirement age to 68 or 70.
With the average life expectancy of Americans increasing, this certainly seems like another viable option.
The downside for anyone in their mid-60s is that this is tantamount to a benefit cut. This option presumes that one is working longer and paying more taxes into the system. However, it does not factor in the potential of placing more seniors in poverty, the antithesis of Social Security's goal.
Realistic option No. 3: scale back the benefits on high-income workers.
This would require that we change the calculations of benefits. It could ensure that money would be there for the lower-income workers, but there is no way to avoid the obvious inequity inherent in such a system.
Furthermore, the calculations would inevitably fail certain families that may not qualify for full benefits on paper but could ill-afford a cut.
Tough choices notwithstanding, the Social Security debate lends itself better to an authentic conversation than the war on terror.
While both issues were, in my opinion, driven by fear, more individuals see their direct interest at stake with Social Security.
Most of us have not felt the pain of war. We have neither lost loved ones nor have we not been required to make any sacrifices. In fact, we were told that it is possible to have tax cuts and war simultaneously, fueling the idyllic notion of a near-casualty-free combat.
Social Security is different; it impacts us all.
The difference between the two debates offers a sad commentary on our values as a society: the less we are personally impacted, the less facts and dialogue matter.
Let's be honest: Doing nothing is not a viable option as it relates to the long-term health of Social Security. There are no magic bullets. The options available all come with a possible downside.
But unlike the war against Iraq, we are at least better prepared to have the conversation.
Byron Williams writes a weekly political/social commentary at Byronspeaks.com. Byron serves as pastor of the Resurrection Community Church in Oakland, California
© 2005 byronspeaks.com
###
