Weekly Shredder 31:
The GOP Social Security Playbook
by James Norton

What if, instead of living in a working democracy, you lived in a horrifying quasi-autocracy where:

The president told your elected representatives exactly what speeches to make...

The president told your elected representatives exactly what letters to send to their constituents...

And the president told your elected representatives to use voters' altruism, fear about the future and concern for "the children" to destroy one of the few government programs that actually works in a cost-efficient way.

Well, you do.

[Cue terrifying horror film music.]

In the service of President Bush's plan for privatizing personalizing Social Security, Sen. Rick Santorum, R-Pa., and his house counterpart, Rep. Deborah Pryce, R-Ohio, have come out with a 108-page packet of marching orders for Republican lawmakers (helpfully posted by the indispensable blog Daily Kos).

For archives, audio, and background about the column, click here.

The document is the cynical insider's version of the domestic agenda Bush pitched during last night's State of the Union address. It's rotten. It's filled with a witch's brew of facts, opinions, twisted truths and damned outright lies. And it's a perfect four-step plan for turning loyal Republican foot-soldiers into zombie minions bent upon selling the American people on a "reform" plan that would further the classic conservative goal of destroying every government-sponsored social program under the sun.

Step one: Suggest That GOP Lawmakers Create a Sense of Panic.

It is key to teach your constituents that Social Security is hurting, but the way in which you go about communicating the problem and the need for reform is critical.... A number of messaging techniques have already been tested in the field — feel free to follow these helpful guidelines as you tailor and communicate the solution to a quickly approaching problem. [Talking points for GOP lawmakers]

Why is it key to teach people that Social Security is hurting? Because without a "crisis," there can be no massive overhaul. But Social Security isn't scheduled to cut its benefits until 2042 — according to the most conservative estimate on the books, from the political appointees on Bush's Social Security commission. Other credible estimates suggest that 2052 — or even later dates — are reasonable times to be concerned about a decrease in Social Security's benefits.

That's a healthy 40 or 50 years from now. Might there be other crises that are more pressing?

Perhaps the dysfunctional Medicare program?

Or US port and chemical plant security?

Or the world's loose nukes?

Yeah.

Step two: Insist This Won't Hurt Their Chances of Re-Election.

The packet is loaded with pages of "case studies" of Republican candidates who challenged the Social Security status quo while running for office. But these aren't enclosed as tools to help sell the public on overhauling Social Security.

The case studies are to assure lily-livered Republican pols that destroying Social Security won't come back to haunt them in the midterms. Now that Bush has won re-election, and is seeking to consolidate his conservative legacy at any cost, it doesn't seem like a stretch to sacrifice some or all of his minions in an effort to put a stake through the heart of a program despised by conservatives for being part of the hated FDR "safety net" — and for working efficiently for generations.

Step three: Tell Them to Sell the Plan With Idealism.

Altruistically, Americans want to hear how people without financial savvy will be protected and educated in a system of personal accounts. They feel it is important that those 'others' are taken care of. A few rare individuals will admit that they are concerned about their own financial acumen. But, even without an education play, they favor personal accounts over the current system.

Appeal to their sense of legacy: Quote theologian Dietrich Bonhoeffer: "The ultimate test of a moral society is the kind of world it leaves to its children." Almost everyone embraces this notion. [Talking points for GOP lawmakers]

These are good salesmanship tactics. Morally... a little shaky.

Step four: Suggest That This is a Possible Huge Conservative Victory.

But what Bush appears to have in mind — creating personal accounts and restraining the growth of Social Security — is the right policy. If he manages to get that policy enacted, it will not only be the signal domestic achievement of his presidency. It will be the biggest legislative victory in the modern history of conservatism. [Enclosed article by Ramesh Ponnuru, "An Idea Whose Time Has Come," National Review, 1/31/05]

And that — winning — is what it's all about. Not "the children." Not altruism. And certainly not saving Social Security.

The problem is that the numbers in the Bush plan don't add up. As it stands, Social Security will begin paying out more money than it takes in in 2016. Under the Bush plan, this happens in 2006.

As it stands, Social Security has incredibly low administrative overhead. Under the Bush plan — like the disastrous partially privatized British and Argentinian state pension systems — administrative costs would go through the roof.

As it stands, Social Security serves as a hedge against a volatile stock market. Under the Bush plan, a market crash would hurt our country's elderly twice: once by destroying any independent investments they might have, and again by devastating their new "personalized" Social Security accounts.

It's a bad fix to a non-existent crisis. The Republicans now have a 108-page playbook on how to sell it to us.

It's time for the Democrats to come up with a playbook of their own.

E-mail James Norton at jim@flakmag.com.

— graphic by Derek Evernden (derek@ocellus.net)