Social Security Battle Looks More Like a Ballet

President Bush made fixing Social Security a centerpiece of his 2000 campaign, and subsequently formed a commission that issued three proposals. All three operate under the same general principle -- that workers would be able to take a certain percentage of the payroll tax they currently contribute to the system, and divert it into a private account that they could invest in the public markets. In exchange, though, they would forgo a portion of guaranteed benefits.

None of the plans explained how the government would finance such a dramatic shift. That's primarily because the only ways to finance any change in the program involve cutting benefits (by raising the eligible retirement age, for instance), raising taxes or running an even larger deficit. Such options hardly make for a good campaign speech.

"Social Security could have been a big issue this election, but now it's not. That's because there's been no major proposal that's been fully vetted," said the Urban Institute's Steuerle. "The campaigns have been very careful in what they say."

Aaron of the Brookings Institution agrees. "Republican candidates know that Bush still backs some form of privatization, while Democrats think the Republicans have a loser on their hands, and they don't want voters to forget about the issue," he said.

The Midterm Follies

Early in the midterm election campaign, the National Republican Congressional Committee issued a policy statement that formally distanced the party from the somewhat misleading and unpopular term "privatization" when discussing Social Security.

"They jettisoned the idea entirely, and disavowed any interest in privatization -- a term President Bush used during his campaigning and has continued to use," Aaron said. "Instead, they talk about 'individual accounts,' but the problem is still the same -- the money has to come from somewhere."

Republicans have regrouped in the past few weeks, attacking Democrats for not having any plan at all.