I'm generally concerned of Democrats who carry a message of massive Social Security reform because I'm an ardent believer in small fixes for a Social Security system that is generally functioning fine and will continue to function fine if it isn't fucked with. But Tom Vilsack is making me worried with things like this:
"During an appearance on statewide public television last (Friday) night, Vilsack -- a Democrat -- said he'd be willing to talk about making significant changes in the Social Security system. "I'm willing to talk to the American people about the challenges that we face and the need for us, all of us, to understand what we're up against and to encourage Americans to participate in building this country into a strong and innovative and creative economy that can sustain a better future for our children," Vilsack said. "That's going to require heavy lifting."
Heavy lifting is perhaps an understatement, as current President George Bush had to abandon his own Social Security reforms in the face of strong opposition from fellow Republicans and Democrats. "There are a lot of things that need to be done in Social Security that we need to have a conversation about," Vilsack said. That could, Vilsack suggested, include raising the age at which Social Security payments start not for Baby Boomers like himself but for younger people, like his 20-something sons. "
That's from a report by Kay Henderson of Radio Iowa last Saturday. You can find the transcript from his Iowa Press interview here and listen to the audio here.
Making significant changes to Social Security isn't necessary. Small things need to be done, like rising the income cap on Social Security contributors as well as possibly raising the retirement age -- for future generations, as Vilsack mentions. That isn't a major reform though, at least not in my book. Those articulating a message of significant changes (granted, they're the words of Kay Henderson and not from Vilsack's mouth) usually end up using the phraseology as a kind of bamboozlement (stealing a term from Josh Marshall) with regards to Social Security and ultimately mean privatization or personal accounts, whatever you want to call it. However, I would argue that privatization is the right word and the only word.
Does Vilsack support privatization? It really is hard to tell. In 1999 or 2000 he signed the DLC's Hyde Park Declaration which included this lovely little tid-bit:
"Create Retirement Savings Accounts to enable low-income Americans to save for their own retirement."
That was listed as one of their goals for 2010. Funny that George W. Bush and his Republican cronies grabbed the privatization euphemism of 'retirement savings accounts' straight from the mouths of the DLC. Retirement savings accounts are essentially the same thing as private accounts, all that is different is the terminology.
But here's what Vilsack said in 2004 while helping with the Democratic rapid response to the Republican Convention:
"Vilsack is helping Democratic national Chairman Terry McAuliffe run the effort to get the Democratic message out during the Republican National Convention that begins Monday at Madison Square Garden. Democrats hope the Iowa governor can provide the perspective of voters in the heartland.
[...]President Bush is expected to talk about his plans for another term when he addresses the GOP convention Thursday night, including a proposal to partially privatize Social Security and his continuing efforts in the campaign against terrorism.
"I suspect the president will trot out worn-out ideas like privatizing Social Security," Vilsack said, suggesting that would get a cool reception "just like his prescription drug plan and his 'leave no child behind' plan.""
From his statements, it seems like in 2004 he was against privatization because Bush was for it and the Democrats were the anti-Bush's.
So what is it Governor Vilsack? You were for it before you were against it and now you say there needs to be change. Will you make a committment not to privatize Social Security if you are selected as the Democratic nominee for 2008? Actually, will you make a committment to never support the full or privatization of Social Security? The American people and Congress blocked privatization once already. Don't make us do it again and bring you down with the rest of them.