Apathetic Elephants: Republican’s Halfhearted Response to Social Security Reform

Although revamping Social Security is a top priority for President Bush, his fellow Republicans are showing mixed feelings about his plan to create private retirement accounts.

Long referred to as "the third rail of politics," Social Security reform has been feared by politicians for decades because changing a program so adored by millions could mean losing just as many votes.

But Bush and some Republican supporters believe that Social Security reform should no longer be a taboo subject on Capitol Hill -- they argue that the entitlement program is in crisis and that drastic reforms are necessary.

Bush’s point of view and plan

Revamping Social Security is part of the President’s larger plan to create what he calls "an ownership society" where public social programs are transformed into individual, market-based ones.

President Bush would like to allow workers to divert about two-thirds of their Social Security tax dollars into private accounts. . He believes that the public system is failing and that private accounts will provide workers with more stability, more money, and a sense of ownership.

For more on Bush’s Social Security plan, click here.

Republicans in Congress are undecided

Many Republican lawmakers have a wait-and-see attitude towards President Bush’s plan. Since the administration has not yet released a comprehensive proposal for the Social Security overhaul, many GOP legislators are laying low by saying that they "need to see more details" before they can either support or refute it.

Republican Representative Walter B. Jones of North Carolina told Congressional Quarterly that most of his constituents are against Bush’s plan and that they fear any drastic changes to Social Security in general.

Jones’ confession echoes the sentiments of various Republican leaders, who say that many of the party’s strongest supporters have had lukewarm reactions to Bush’s plan.

Republican voters

Many Republican voters are hesitant to back Bush’s plans for Social Security.

Even groups that were vital to Bush’s reelection, like Southern Baptists, are neither persuaded nor passionate about the administration’s top domestic policy initiative.

Richard Land, president of the Southern Baptist Convention’s Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission, says that the group voted for Bush because he’s against abortion and gay marriage, not because he wants Social Security reform. And William J. Murray, chairman of the Religious Freedom Coalition, who is himself in favor of private retirement accounts, says he just can’t get people in the coalition excited about Social Security reforms.

Further, groups like the Family Research Council and Concerned Women for America, both avid Bush supporters, have not listed Social Security among their legislative priorities for the 109th Congress.

The tepid response shows that many of Bush’s strongest supporters are aligned with his social policies, but not his economic ones. John C. Green, director of the Ray C. Bliss Institute of Applied Politics at the University of Akron, told Congressional Quarterly that "if Social Security and other economic issues had been the key issues all through the 1970s and 1980s and 1990s, then these people might not have left the Democratic Party."

Democrats respond

By contrast, Democrats have become unified against Bush’s Social Security reforms. Their response has been swift and cohesive – Democrats are touring the United States to inform the public of their point of view, and Democrats in both the House and the Senate have new websites that challenge Bush’s ideas.

Democrats feel that all Americans are entitled to a secure base of retirement benefits and health care, because individuals can never know for sure whether they will be well off or not in their older years. According to this line of thinking, the federal government can and should use tax dollars to ensure basic benefits to everyone.

A way to lure Americans into saving

There are economists and politicians on both sides that may come to agreement about getting Americans to spend less and save more for their retirement - without touching Social Security. The plan would let all Americans put pre-tax money aside in a retirement savings account (like the 401k’s and IRA’s that some people have now) that would not be taxed until they reached retirement age. These accounts would be "tax sheltered" and taxed as income at a much lower rate when older people are no longer working.

What do you think?

WomenMatter is a place to discuss life issues with other women. We don’t want to wedge women apart, but rather bring them together to dialogue. To log onto one of our online forums, click here.

WomenMatter encourages women to educate themselves on the issues and then approach their representatives with ideas.

Even though the election is over, your voice is vital. Make sure your leaders know what’s important to you. To see how your representatives vote and to contact them, click here

WomenMatter is dedicated to empowering women to participate in the political process. To do this we have invested in the most in-depth NONPARTISAN information, because we trust each woman to make up her own mind.

• We track nine issues every week and update this website several times a week.
• We launch after school GirlsMatter Clubs in middle and high schools to grow the next generation of politically aware women through a full curriculum and startup kit on girlsmatter.com.
• We do continuous research to make sure that we are meeting the needs of women across the country of all ages, races, incomes, preferences, and religions.
• We provide partnerships with nonpartisan organizations that provide services to women and advocate for them.

We offer all our services free of charge without memberships or subscriptions. To help us maintain this work - not just in election years but as a continuing part of women’s lives - please make a tax deductible donation, click here.

Article Posted on: 3/3/2005