Time for political courage on Social Security reform

It's one of the toughest and most divisive issues facing the American people. And how we respond will have a profound impact on future generations. Yet many elected officials refuse to even talk about it. President Bush proposed a plan to deal with the issue but couldn't even get members of his own party to go along. Congress blew its shot at reform in a flurry of sound bites and fear-mongering. Most of the presidential candidates won't go anywhere near the subject.

The issue, of course, is Social Security reform. The immigration debate is minor league compared to the rough and tumble political environment surrounding America's most beloved entitlement program.

Part of the reason is that people can't even agree there's a problem, let alone how to fix it. There are those who are convinced that, because of the impending retirement of more than 78 million baby boomers, Social Security will be on the road to insolvency as early as 2016 -- the point at which more money will be going out in benefits than coming in from payroll taxes. Others are more optimistic about when the dam breaks, insisting there will be enough money to pay all benefits until 2038. Then there's the last group, which insists there is nothing to worry about.

But if the issue isn't resolved, guess who'll foot the bill? Boomers' kids and grandkids.

Social Security is a huge transfer of wealth where every generation pays for the one before it. Seventy-eight million baby boomers had no problem paying benefits to the World War II generation because, well, there are 78 million of them. Imagine the burden on those in their teens, 20s and 30s who are expected to keep millions of boomers in a comfy retirement.

In 1946, the cost of supporting one retiree was spread among 42 workers. Now, we're rapidly approaching the point where the number of workers who support each retiree will be down to two. And, of course, that means more strain on those workers in the form of higher taxes.

Some tax hikes on future workers might be inevitable, but politicians would be wise to explore other options before traveling that route. Someone should have told that to Fred Thompson, who raised the tax issue when he became the first presidential candidate in either party in this election to talk about saving Social Security. Front-runners Rudy Giuliani and Hillary Clinton have run away from the issue and refuse to lay out specific plans. They speak only in generalities, perhaps out of fear of AARP, the lobby that advocates for seniors and resists tinkering with Social Security.

There are better ideas out there than raising taxes -- raising the retirement age to 70, "means testing" the program, creating personal retirement accounts and tying benefits to inflation, not wages. Thompson raised that last option.

Then there is Barack Obama, who said recently that he would push for higher Social Security income by raising the cap on payroll taxes. Currently, the first $97,500 of a person's annual income is taxed. Obama said he is against pushing back the retirement age or cutting benefits.

We can argue the details. But at least Thompson and Obama had the guts to put something on the table. The rest seem comfortable hiding under the table.

© 2007, Washington Post Writers Group