"Do Nothing Congress"

Published: Omaha World-Herald, 4/10/06 and the Waseca County News 4/4/06

Tim Penny: Congress lags on Social Security
BY TIM PENNY

President Harry S. Truman ran against a "do-nothing" Congress back in 1948. It served him well as he surprised the pundits and won a full term.

Since that time, Congress has generally been leery of the "do-nothing" label. A lack of legislative achievement often gives rise to voter disgust. "After all," many voters ask, "what are we paying you for, if you don't get the job done?"

That is why it is surprising that, on Social Security reform, Congress seems content to say, "No." Sadly, some members of Congress even cheered when, during the State of the Union address this year, President Bush referenced the failure of Congress to heed his call for action on Social Security.

However, further delay is nothing to cheer about, as each year of inaction adds another $600 billion in deficits to the system.

I know from my own experience on Capitol Hill that legislators are always nervous about touching Social Security. I recall the early 1980s when Congress waited until Social Security was practically broke before enacting a fix. One of my first votes as a freshman legislator in 1983 was to enact the Greenspan Commission recommendations to shore up Social Security's finances.

Because the system was already in crisis - in fact, the system was only months away from defaulting on its payments - the solution at that time required both payroll tax hikes and benefit cuts, and these cuts included both current and future retirees. In short, that solution meant that many current retirees would not receive the full payments they expected and younger workers would pay significantly more throughout their work careers and then get less back once they retire.

This time around, President Bush challenged Congress to get ahead of the curve and address Social Security before it again becomes a crisis. That sure sounds better to me than a repeat of the 1983 approach of "all pain and no gain."

Still, members of Congress from both parties are either reluctant or resistant to pursue Social Security reform before the next fiscal crisis hits. Why?

In fairness, some are eternal optimists. They believe that economic growth, immigration growth or higher birth rates will somehow save the system. To reach this conclusion, they simply ignore their own experts at the Social Security Administration, the Congressional Budget Office and the Government Accountability Office. All agree that Social Security is almost certain to become insolvent unless Congress acts.

Others oppose reform primarily because of partisan politics. A number of liberal Democrats will never support reform so long as George W. Bush is in the White House. Moderate Democrats are open to reform but are reluctant to trust a Republican White House that often talks about bipartisanship but seldom genuinely reaches out to work with Democrats.

In truth, however, most legislators - Republican and Democratic alike - are just risk-averse. They live in fear of a 30-second attack ad in their next campaign unfairly portraying them as voting to "destroy Social Security." Rather than explaining to their constituents that "doing nothing" is the surest way to destroy Social Security, they instead avoid the issue. In doing so, they place their own reelection ahead of what is best for the next generation.

When Social Security was created - 70 years ago - it meant little to retirees of the day. That's because (1) the first benefits were not paid until nearly five years after the program was enacted, (2) relatively few people were covered by the program and (3) the retirement age was set at 65 when life expectancy was barely 60. Clearly, legislators then were thinking about the retirement security of coming generations.

To his credit, President Bush has challenged Congress today to take that same generational view. So far, its lack of response justifies labeling this a "do-nothing" Congress. And we all know what would happen to us if we showed up for work but did not do our jobs.