Marc Goldwein is senior vice president and senior policy director for the nonpartisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget.
The Senate Finance Committee recently convened lawmakers to begin figuring out ways to shore up Social Security’s finances. It’s about time: The program’s retirement trust fund is just six years from insolvency, at which point the law requires an abrupt 22 percent benefit cut.
The hearing, at which I testified, focused not on what policies to enact to save Social Security, but on how to agree upon those policies. Recently, responsible lawmakers in both chambers have called for a special process to secure solvency. This is an important step in itself — because both sides are going to need to work together to preserve the program for future generations.
One proposal, the Promise Act, spearheaded by Sens. Dick Durbin (D-Illinois) and Bill Cassidy (R-Louisiana), would direct the bipartisan Social Security Advisory Board to develop an initial solvency plan for Congress to consider, amend and debate, and hopefully enact. Another — Reps. Tom Cole’s (R-Oklahoma) and Tom Suozzi’s (D-New York) Bipartisan Social Security Commission Act — would create a new bipartisan board to recommend solvency legislation.
These types of special processes are exactly what it will take to get the ball rolling on urgently needed reforms. They will create an opportunity for Democrats and Republicans to come together on a plan to save Social Security before it is too late.
Special interests on the left and right, unfortunately, have attacked these kinds of solutions for fear they will upset the status quo. Groups such as Americans for Tax Reform (ATR) and AARP agree on very little, except for their unwillingness to accept a realistic compromise that could actually save Social Security. AARP opposes any changes to slow the growth in benefits, even for the richest seniors, while ATR is against any increase in taxes, even to permanently restore Social Security stability.
Their arguments, however, don’t hold water.
These critics claim that the commission-driven approach violates the normal legislative process. On the contrary, when it comes to Social Security, outside commissions, committees and advisory councils are the regular process.
All the most significant Social Security laws throughout the program’s 91-year history were developed with the help of outside entities. The original Social Security Act establishing the program came out of then-Labor Secretary Frances Perkins’s Committee on Economic Security. Major legislation in 1939, 1950, 1956, 1972 and 1977 came from Social Security Advisory Councils — the predecessors to today’s Social Security Advisory Board. And the landmark 1983 reforms that bought us 50 years of solvency were negotiated in part through the bipartisan National Commission on Social Security Reform, known as the Greenspan Commission after its chairman, economist Alan Greenspan.
The critics argue that Social Security is best addressed through “regular order” in the Finance and Ways and Means committees. But those committees have had 40 years to try to save the program, to no avail. Before this month, the Finance Committee hadn’t even held a full-committee hearing on solvency in 15 years.
There’s also the claim that commissions are just a way to force through either massive benefit cuts or tax increases. But these bodies don’t force anything. They offer a process for developing a plan — based on public input — for Congress to consider, amend, and approve or reject.
Those concerned about benefit cuts should worry less about a commission and more about the looming 22 percent cut; if it went into effect today, it would amount to an average of roughly $500 less in benefits per retiree per month, more than what most retired households spend on groceries. And those concerned about tax increases should be concerned about waiting until the last minute, when the fastest way to save Social Security will involve either a massive and immediate tax hike or unprecedented levels of borrowing that will guarantee even larger taxes on future generations.
Perhaps the most laughable critique is that a commission won’t work. At last week’s hearing, the AARP witness declared that “the history of special commissions is littered with very good intentions and failed results.”
This is nonsense. Over the years, Congress has established literally hundreds of commissions, advisory councils and other groups focused on everything from consumer product safety to civilian space programs. Many fail — just as many legislative efforts fail. But from the Greenspan Commission to the 9/11 Commission to the Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) commission, many succeed.
And those that work best do so by establishing a clear mission, bringing in expertise and creating a safe space for bipartisan negotiation and cooperation.
AARP, ATR and other special interests don’t oppose a commission because they’re worried it will fail; they oppose it because they’re worried it will succeed. And that means accepting compromise.
Resistance to compromise was the reason AARP opposed the 1983 efforts, a balanced mix of benefit and revenue changes that secured Social Security for half a century. As the lead Democratic negotiator, Robert M. Ball, wrote, “AARP opposed just about every constructive proposal that emerfed from the entire negotiating process.” The ATR, similarly, would rather let the country barrel toward a fiscal crisis than move an inch on taxes.
If Congress waits for special interests to approve its Social Security plan, our choices will be either automatic 22 percent cuts or $190 trillion in added debt.
It’s time to step up and agree on a commission as the best process for saving Social Security.
The post The best way toward a Social Security fix? This one is tried and true. appeared first on Washington Post.
