Report #5
By Hans Riemer, Senior Policy Analyst
8/15/02 | Get the PDF

"ELIZABETH DOLE DANCES AROUND ISSUE OF PARTIAL PRIVATIZATION FOR SOCIAL SECURITY"

Campaign for America’s Future Truth Squad offers “Five questions about Social Security for Elizabeth Dole.”

Today, Elizabeth Dole confirmed in no uncertain terms that she supports diverting funds out of Social Security and into private investments. In an interview with Washington Post reporter Terry Neal, Ms. Dole said:

You know, if a young person or a grandson of that individual wants to voluntarily take a small portion of their payroll tax and put it in something like inflation-adjusted government bonds, a diversified bond account, over time I think that that is going to provide dramatically more than the current system would provide.

When Mr. Neal followed up to clarify by stating that what “you support is a form of privatization,” Ms. Dole said, "No one is talking about privatizing Social Security.” (Transcript at washingtonpost.com .)

No one is talking about privatization, apparently, except for Elizabeth Dole. But semantics aside, Ms. Dole is advocating a public policy position that demands some hard questions.

1. If Elizabeth Dole says she is opposed to privatization, then she must know what she means by that. Can she give an example of a proposal for privatization introduced to Congress that she would oppose?
   
2. By saying that people should invest Social Security money in bonds, Ms. Dole is clearly trying to avoid having to use the word “stock” in the same sentence as “Social Security.” So would she support a plan that barred individuals from investing in stocks? Is her position that the government should tell people how to invest money? (And does she know that Social Security is already invested in government bonds?)
   
3. Ms. Dole says, “I would not vote to take one penny away from retirees or to increase their taxes”? But the amount of Social Security money that would be diverted out of the program under partial-privatization is not a “small portion” at all. Under the Bush Commission plans, for example, private investments would divert $1.5 trillion away from Social Security over just the next ten years – money that is already promised to pay benefits for current retirees and those who will retire soon. Where will Ms. Dole get the money to keep her promise?
   
4. There is a very simple test of whether Dole supports partial-privatization: if the Bush plans were introduced as legislation, would she vote for them or not? The Bush Commission plans would cut Social Security guaranteed benefits by 17% for today’s 35-year-old workers retiring in 2032, and 41% for workers retiring in 2066. Workers who do not want to invest Social Security money would still face the same benefit cuts. Workers who want to retire before the normal retirement age, which already is rising to 67, would have benefits cut even more. [Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, http://www.cbpp.org/6-18-02socsec-pr.htm]
   
5. So far, almost 150 candidates for the U.S. House and Senate have signed a Pledge against privatizing Social Security (www.signthepledge.org). The Pledge is not a semantic device; it is very specific about what privatization means. Ms. Dole’s campaign has received it. Does she plan to sign the Pledge?

The Campaign for America’s Future is putting the spotlight on misleading campaign messages. As supporters of privatization try to spin their way out of a fair debate over the consequences of their ideas, the Campaign for America’s Future’s “Truth Squad” will expose the misrepresentations and lies. For more information, contact Hans Riemer with the Campaign for America’s Future at (202) 955-5665 or riemer@ourfuture.org.

For more information about Social Security visit our Social Security Superpage.