October marks the end of the baseball season, but November is when we make decisions about our other national pastime – politics in Washington.
Voters find out who won and pundits speculate why – what issues decided the election and what do the results mean for the American people.
One perennial political issue is Social Security, and this year is no different.
Some proponents of private accounts in Social Security continue to reaffirm their support for diverting Social Security money to fund these accounts. Yet a recently released AARP survey finds that voters who are boomer age or older (age 42 and older) are strongly opposed to using Social Security taxes to fund private accounts. More than seven in 10 of those polled (72 percent) said they oppose private accounts. Less than one in six (16 percent) of those polled said they support such accounts.
The survey reaffirms the public rejection of private accounts that came through clearly in last year's debate, and the voting public has not changed its position during this election season.
And it appears that congressional candidates in many races are getting the public's message. An AARP analysis of candidate responses in 45 competitive Senate and House races indicates that candidates are hearing the public's rejection of private accounts carved out of Social Security.
AARP's 2006 Voters' Guides ask candidates whether they “support or oppose using Social Security taxes to fund private accounts.” Of the 20 Senate candidates in the 10 competitive races for which Guides are available, 14 (70 percent) of the candidates checked the box in opposition: only one (5 percent) candidate expressed support, while 5 (25 percent) candidates either did not check a box or respond at all.
Similarly, among the 71 candidates in 35 competitive House races, 43 (60 percent) of the candidates checked the box in opposition. Only two candidates (3 percent) expressed support, while 26 (37 percent) of the remaining candidates either did not check a box or respond at all.
The Guides also ask candidates whether they would “support or oppose a balanced Social Security plan to continue the program's guaranteed benefits for future generations.” Of 20 Senate candidates, 15 (75 percent) candidates checked the box in support, one candidate (5 percent) opposed, and 20 percent did not check a box or respond. For the House races, a total of 45 (63 percent) candidates support a balanced plan, only 1 (1 percent) opposes, and the remaining 25 (35 percent) candidates either did not check a box or respond.
It is clear from our Voters' Guides that an overwhelming majority of these candidates oppose private accounts and support a balanced Social Security plan to continue this critical program for future generations. It is our hope, shared by many voters, that candidates who have committed to strengthening Social Security will follow through on their promise to preserve Social Security's guaranteed benefits.
Social Security needs to be strengthened now for our children and our grandchildren, but the solution shouldn't be worse than the problem.
Proposals for private accounts carved out of Social Security do nothing to address solvency – indeed, they would move us away from solvency, introduce unnecessary risk into the program, and create a huge new mountain of debt for future generations. While we reject such accounts as an option, we do support a balanced approach to securing Social Security for the future. Once the new Congress convenes, we urge that they put aside polarizing ideas that won't work and get serious about strengthening Social Security.
AARP is committed to working with both political parties to help ensure that Social Security remains strong. Rest assured, AARP will not waiver in our commitment to Social Security, and we will remain firm in our stance against any plan that takes money out of Social Security.
Instead, we need an open and bipartisan process that leads to practical answers. It's the only way to succeed.
Rother is group executive officer of policy and strategy for AARP, 601 E Street NW, Washington, D.C. 20049.
