|
|
| ||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
By Mark Halperin and Elizabeth Wilner & Marc Ambinder and Brooke Brower
October 16, 2002
When Democrats first began talking about Social Security during this midterm election campaign, it seemed kinda cute and anachronistic.
But the fact is, most of the Republican candidates in the major races this fall do want to radically alter the Social Security system.
Democrats have no plan of their own, and they are demagoguing the reality — Republicans are not actually proposing to change the system for current retirees.
But Democrats are right about two things: 1) Republicans have not explained how they would pay for the transition costs of the new system; and 2) the point of the proposed new system is to lower the guaranteed minimum benefit portion of Social Security in order to take pressure off a trust fund that is shrinking because of the change in the ratio between workers and retirees.
Republican candidates, of course, were led over this hill (or will it be a cliff?) by George W. Bush's presidential campaign. Bush's 2000 effort was notable because, despite the best efforts of a handful of journalists and the Gore campaign, Bush was able to get through the entire election without ever admitting that the point of his plan — yes, we are repeating this again because it is sooooo important — was to lower the guaranteed minimum benefit portion, and also without having to explain how he would pay for the $1 trillion or so in transition costs.
The CW is that presidential candidates get more scrutiny than congressional candidates, so it at first seems counterintuitive that Bush would have gotten an easier time on this than some Republican candidates seem to be having this year. But remember how Bush got points from the media, and arguably a pass from some, for daring to touch the "third rail" of American politics (whose fearsome status may once again be restored this fall). And in 2000, the stock market wasn't in such a decline. And in presidential elections, seniors don't dominate turnout as much as they do in midterm years. Plus, Bush had other issues — read: Clinton fatigue — that allowed him to hold his own among older voters…
New Hampshire
The Manchester Union Leader captures the back and forth between GOP Senate nominee John Sununu and a coalition of liberal advocacy groups about Social Security.
The Campaign for America's Future and the Democratic coordinated committee will love how yesterday played across the state.
For example, the Nashua Telegraph 's Landrigan leads with this: "Republican U.S. Senate candidate John E. Sununu helped write 2000 legislation that would have required younger workers to invest the surplus in the Social Security Trust Fund into private investment accounts."
Sununu pronounced himself "unfazed" as three more liberal groups went up with ads against him.