July 29, 2004, 9:14 a.m.
Kerry’s Secret Social Security Plan — Revealed!
A little deduction can go a long way.

By Sean Tuffnell

Political conventions, while no longer the news-making festivals of yesteryear, still serve a critically important function for our democracy. They provide the two major political parties the chance to present an unfitered picture to the American electorate of who their leaders are, what they stand for, and what they would do if they were given the opportunity to govern. While many in the news media bristle at our modern day conventions as nothing more than “infomercials,” if they at least “inform” then they have served their purpose.

So what have we learned from the gathering in Boston, other than that the Democrats have a general distaste for the war and anything having to do with George W. Bush? Not much, unless you listen very, very closely. What have I gleaned from a close inspection of Democrat speeches? If you take the rhetoric at face value, it appears that Sen. John Kerry has a secret plan to cut all government programs except for Social Security by 20 percent.

How in the world did I deduce that, you ask? It’s elementary my dear Watson. On the opening night of the convention, former President Bill Clinton announced to the world that John Kerry has a “good idea … to save Social Security.” This was great news, because Social Security faces serious challenges.

While it’s one of the government’s most popular programs, having provided a source of retirement security for many seniors, Social Security is structurally flawed. It is built on the premise that each generation of workers can fund the retirement of their parents and grandparents, and that as a reward their retirement will be secured by the payroll taxes paid by their children.

The problem comes with demographic realities. First, through healthy living and the miracles of modern science, we are living longer. In 1940, life expectancy was 61.4 years for men and 65.7 for women. By 2000, life expectancy was 74.2 for men and 79.5 for women; by 2050, life expectancy will be 79.2 for men and 83.4 for women. This is great for us, but bad for Social Security — it means the pool of retirees collecting benefits is increasing.

At the same time, Americans for several decades have been having fewer kids. No longer do we regularly see families with three or four children. Now the increasing norm is for couples to wait to get married, wait to start having children, and when they do, they often only have one. The result has been dramatic. In 1940, there were 42 workers per retiree. Today the ratio is 3-to-1; by 2050 it will be 2-to-1. The burden on each individual worker will increase substantially and we will no longer be able to keep our promises to retirees at current payroll-tax levels. The funding gap caused by this demographic shift begins to open in 2018 and will eventually reach approximately $11 trillion.

That gap can only be bridged by one or more of the following prescriptions: cut benefits by up to 30 percent, raise payroll taxes up to 50 percent, increase the general debt up to $11 trillion, or generate additional revenue using existing resources, such as allowing workers to invest a portion of their payroll-tax contributions in personal retirement accounts (an approach endorsed by President Bush).

Back to the Democratic convention. President Clinton’s announcement of Kerry’s Social Security plan raised a red flag when I heard it. After all, for well over a year Kerry has been on the campaign trail speaking on every topic from Iraq to gay marriage. Not once do I remember him dedicating a speech, or even five minutes of a speech, to his great idea for saving Social Security.

Then, on the second night, Massachusetts’s senior senator, Ted Kennedy, echoed President Clinton’s assertion, saying: “John Kerry offers hope, not fear. The hope … of Social Security that is always there for the elderly.” There it was again, a vague reference to Kerry having a plan for Social Security.

If both the former president and Kerry’s Senate partner believe he has a plan, there must be one somewhere. Time to do a little research. Unable to find policy details in the convention speeches, I decided to look at the party platform — the place we are supposed to find policy details. Here’s what it says:

“We are absolutely committed to preserving Social Security. … Democrats believe in the progressive, guaranteed benefit … not subject to the whims of the market or the economy. We oppose privatizing Social Security or raising the retirement age.” It goes on about the importance of Social Security but offers no other policy prescriptions.

Okay, so as a party the Democrats want to maintain the current structure and benefit levels of Social Security, but they don’t want to generate new revenue through personal investment. That still leaves me wondering about this plan for saving it.

So I did a little more research. My next stop was the Kerry campaign website I looked under issues to see if his plan was posted there. Unfortunately, his index of issues left me perplexed: There were links to information about children and families, civil rights, the economy, education, energy, environment, health care, homeland security, national security, national service, rural America, science and technolgy, stronger communities, veterans, and women. Nowhere was there a link to Social Security, retirement security, or even seniors’ issues. Frustrated, I tried looking under economy, but found no mention of Social Security there either.

Digging deeper, I finally found some instances where Kerry made comments on Social Security during the campaign. In January, at a presidential debate in Des Moines, Iowa, Kerry said, “I will never privatize Social Security. I will never try to extend the retirement age for Social Security. And I will not cut any benefits for Social Security.”

On NBC’s Meet the Press in April, Kerry said, “I’m not going to cut Social Security benefits. I’m not going to extend the retirement age. … And we’re not going to have to raise the premiums.”

If benefit cuts, retirement-age increases, personal retirement accounts, and tax hikes (raising the “premiums”) are off the table, there are only two options left: increase the debt by $11 trillion or cut all other government programs by 20 percent. And since Sen. Kerry has routinely criticized President Bush for increasing the debt, one can deduce he’s not about to come out in favor of increasing the debt by $11 trillion.

So it’s simple really. Through a simple process of deduction, it becomes clear that Sen. Kerry has a secret plan to cut spending on everything from health care to education to defense by 20 percent. And you thought conventions had no value anymore.

— Sean R. Tuffnell is the senior manager of media relations and special projects for the National Center for Policy Analysis, including Team NCPA, the NCPA’s special education project on Social Security reform

*   *   *

YOU’RE NOT A SUBSCRIBER TO NATIONAL REVIEW? Sign up right now! It’s easy: Subscribe to National Review here, or to the digital version of the magazine here. You can even order a subscription as a gift: print or digital!