Editorial: Placing it all on red

Thursday, Feb. 3, 2005 | 9:15 a.m.

The centerpiece of President Bush's State of the Union address on Wednesday -- and its most controversial part -- was his insistence that Social Security be partially privatized. Bush would radically transform Social Security by cutting guaranteed benefits for younger workers, allowing them to invest much of their payroll taxes in the stock market. Only those who are 55 and older would not face any change in their benefits. Bush has claimed that Social Security is in the midst of a financial "crisis," necessitating a dramatic overhaul of the nation's most cherished government program.

The president is right in pointing out that one day, based on the changing demographics in this nation, Social Security will realize a cash flow problem. With each passing year, millions upon millions of the "baby boom" generation are getting closer to retirement at the same time that fewer Americans are entering the workforce. But there is abundant evidence that Bush is manufacturing this so-called "crisis." For example, if present projections hold true, the government would not reach a point of having to reduce full benefits until 2042 at the earliest. That's hardly a crisis in 2005.

Rather than creating "Social Security roulette," as Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid of Nevada has so aptly coined Bush's plan that relies on the volatile stock market, the president has other less-risky options to shore up Social Security's solvency. For instance, raising payroll taxes on wealthy Americans would be one way to ease the cash-flow problem, but this is something that Bush has rejected.

It's obvious to us that Bush's plan is ideologically driven -- an attempt to undermine government's most popular and successful program -- and has nothing to do with preserving and protecting Social Security. We hope that Congress agrees, too, and blocks this radical plan.

archive