Start Talks on Social Security

Today's editorial considers the urgency of reforming Social Security and presents one possible option for moving forward.

Although flashier issues - the war in Iraq, illegal immigration and blame for the choking economy - tended to dominate the campaign trail in 2008, U.S. Sen. Lindsey Graham made his own unsuccessful attempts to fix a drying-up Social Security system one of his key stump issues. When he was a 22-year-old college student, both of his parents died, leaving him to raise a 13-year-old sister on Social Security survivor's benefits.

"I know what it's like to need it," Graham said during a televised debate in October, echoing comments he had made earlier to a crowd of supporters at Litchfield Beach and Golf Resort.

On Tuesday, as if the economic news about the present day were not gloomy enough, the U.S. Treasury told us what the future holds: In seven years, Social Security will begin paying out more money than it takes in, and by 2037, that deficit will devour what is now a $2.4 trillion trust fund for Social Security. Exacerbated by the recession, these grim dates are several years sooner than previously expected.

In Washington, there are generally three broad lines of thinking on Social Security. Republicans, including former President Bush, have long pushed for privatizing parts of Social Security, allowing workers to pay toward their own accounts in the future rather than supporting today's beneficiaries. Democrats, on the other hand, have vigorously opposed any changes that would reduce benefits.

A third group, however, has pushed for reforming Social Security. Graham has been so vocal on this effort in previous years that he has drawn the attention of President Obama - The New York Times reported recently that the Democratic president made overtures to the S.C. Republican about working together on the issue.

On the campaign trail, Graham proposed a sort of working list of changes that must be made, most of which would not take effect until years down the road. They include:

Gradually raising retirement age.

Reducing benefits to wealthier retirees.

Tying the increase in benefits to cost-of-living increases rather than wages, which grow more quickly.

Giving workers who voluntarily pay more into the system a government match, thus encouraging savings, similar to private employers' contributions to retirement accounts.

The compromise attempts have drawn opposition from extreme members of both parties - Republicans who seek to privatize the system, and Democrats who seek to protect the current one. An early move by President Obama to create a bipartisan Social Security task force was apparently scuttled by members of his own party, worried he was already taking on too much with the banking system, health care and energy policy. Recent White House comments now indicate plans to tackle Social Security - after health care reform has been passed, which could be years.

Graham, however, was on the right track by attempting to jump-start the conversation and drawing the best practices from each ideological group - as was Obama's original instinct to partner with him. The details of any reform plan must still be worked out, but the work must begin soon.

"The longer we wait," said U.S. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, "the sooner those challenges will be upon us, and the harder the options will be."

Your thoughts?

In Washington, there are generally three broad lines of thinking on Social Security. Republicans, including former President Bush, have long pushed for privatizing parts of Social Security, allowing workers to pay toward their own accounts in the future rather than supporting today's beneficiaries. Democrats, on the other hand, have vigorously opposed any changes that would reduce benefits.

A third group, however, has pushed for reforming Social Security. Graham has been so vocal on this effort in previous years that he has drawn the attention of President Obama - The New York Times reported recently that the Democratic president made overtures to the S.C. Republican about working together on the issue.

On the campaign trail, Graham proposed a sort of working list of changes that must be made, most of which would not take effect until years down the road. They include:

Gradually raising retirement age.

Reducing benefits to wealthier retirees.

Tying the increase in benefits to cost-of-living increases rather than wages, which grow more quickly.

Giving workers who voluntarily pay more into the system a government match, thus encouraging savings, similar to private employers' contributions to retirement accounts.

The compromise attempts have drawn opposition from extreme members of both parties - Republicans who seek to privatize the system, and Democrats who seek to protect the current one. An early move by President Obama to create a bipartisan Social Security task force was apparently scuttled by members of his own party, worried he was already taking on too much with the banking system, health care and energy policy. Recent White House comments now indicate plans to tackle Social Security - after health care reform has been passed, which could be years.

Graham, however, was on the right track by attempting to jump-start the conversation and drawing the best practices from each ideological group - as was Obama's original instinct to partner with him. The details of any reform plan must still be worked out, but the work must begin soon.

"The longer we wait," said U.S. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, "the sooner those challenges will be upon us, and the harder the options will be."

Your thoughts?