Taking on Social Security

(2 of 3)

What about Bush's proposed individual accounts? On their own, they do nothing to solve Social Security's funding problems. Even the White House admits as much. Personal retirement accounts, "for all their virtues, are insufficient to that task," Wehner wrote in his memo.

There's also an inconvenient fact that Bush rarely mentions: if workers start investing payroll taxes in individual accounts, the government will need another source to cover benefits for retireesas much as $2 trillion by some estimates. The options are grim: borrowing heavily, cutting benefits or both. While Bush has not spelled out how he would deal with what are known in bureaucratic jargon as the "transition costs," Wehner and others at the White House have signaled that he is leaning toward a significant reduction in future benefits that gets deeper over the decades. Some Republicans say that move alone could kill Bush's plan. "Any effort to change the benefit pattern just virtually guarantees you can't get anything done," Gingrich warns. "The Democrats and labor are putting together a massive campaign. If you give them a weapon that big, they're going to succeed."

That Americans should feel so protective of Social Security reflects the central role it has come to play in their lives, their expectations and their peace of mind. When Franklin Delano Roosevelt signed it into law in August 1935, he didn't use the word crisis because he didn't have to: 20% of the country was out of work, and no one was poorer than the elderly. "We can never insure 100% of the population against 100% of the hazards and vicissitudes of life, but we have tried to frame a law which will give some measure of protection to the average citizen and to his family against the loss of a job and against poverty-ridden old age," F.D.R. said. At the end of 2004, about 48 million Americansnot just retired workers but also the disabled and the spouses and children of deceased workersdrew $41.5 billion a month in benefits. Even with 401(k)s and pensions figured, nearly two-thirds of those who receive benefits count on it for more than half their income; a third rely on it for 90%.

All of which explains why rank-and-file Republicans on Capitol Hillwho haven't forgotten how they used to get clobbered for entertaining even modest Social Security changesaren't exactly storming the microphones to pledge their unconditional support for anything that would change the basic outlines of this arrangement.

Anxiety is especially high in the House, where all 435 lawmakers have to run for re-election next year. "I've told my staff we are going to keep all options open. I'm not saying yes or no at this point," says Republican Congressman Mike Castle of Delaware, who leads a group of Republican moderates known as the Main Street Partnership. "It's well and good to say the average gain [in an investment account] would be higher than if you left it in Social Security, but there's a definite certainty to Social Security. When you're in the market, you're subject to the whims of the market."

What's more, studies of how Americans invest their 401(k) accounts suggest that, given the chance to make choices, most can't even beat a basic index fund. People tend to chase last year's returns, sticking with stocks long after they have peaked, or invest too conservatively or fail to diversify. Still, there are reasons to think the public, particularly younger Americans, might be open to the idea of taking more control of their own retirement. As the New Deal generation dies off, it is being replaced by one far more skeptical about Social Security. In the TIME poll, a majority of the work force53%said they had little or no confidence that the current system would provide full benefits when they retired. Half of those from 18 to 34 said they supported the idea of diverting part of their Social Security taxes into individual accounts, compared with only 30% of those 55 and over. (That's one reason Bush rarely misses an opportunity to reassure older people that his plan would maintain their benefits.) But in all age groups, a large majority said they would reject the plan if it meant heavy government borrowing.

Bush's approach has met near universal opposition among Democrats, labor and liberal groups. The formidable AARP, a crucial ally in his successful fight last year for a Medicare prescription-drug program, is on the other side this time. It has already started newspaper ads warning that private accounts are simply too risky. "It's a little ironic that the AARP would be saying that, since one of the major things the AARP does is run [an investment program] for retirees," countered Treasury Secretary Snow in an interview with TIME. "The President made it clear that these plans are not going to be high risk. You're not going to be allowed to bet on any stocks or go out to the roulette wheel."

The politics around Social Security have shifted enough that some Democrats argue they cannot count on winning simply by saying no (though it has always worked in the past). Bruce Reed, who was President Bill Clinton's chief domestic adviser, says legislative fights should carry the same warning as investment accounts: past performance is no guarantee of future results. "We need to show we're serious about finding a sensible solution in addition to stopping his crazy one," says Reed, now president of the centrist Democratic Leadership Council. "I don't think Bush can pull this off, but the best way to stop Bush from passing a bad plan is to point out what's wrong with it and show what a good plan would look like."