Plans for a free lunch

I hope you all will take a moment to read this rather pointed Times analysis of the various plans to "reform" social security - oddly enough, the popular program is about the only thing in Washington that doesn't need reforming.

Mr. Bush, who is likely to step up his call for private accounts when he acts as host of a two-day conference on the economy this week, has steadfastly avoided any reference to cutting future benefits. Instead, he has repeated a two-part message, that Social Security faces a financial crisis, and that people should be allowed to put some of their payroll taxes into private accounts and earn higher returns by investing in stocks.

"This is more than a problem to be solved," Mr. Bush declared during the election campaign. "It's an opportunity to help millions of our fellow citizens find the security and independence of ownership."

To drive that point home this week, White House officials scheduled a single mother from Iowa, Sandy Jaques, to speak on the advantages that private accounts could offer to divorced spouses and widows.

But White House officials have begun to acknowledge what many conservatives take as a given; that is, with or without personal accounts, future Social Security benefits must be scaled back.

"Sacrifice is built into the system already," Joshua B. Bolten director of the Office of Management and Budget, said in a meeting with reporters last week. "The one thing I can say for sure is that if left unattended, the system will be unable to make good on its promises."

Those comments echo a recent warning by N. Gregory Mankiw, chairman of the White House Council of Economic Advisers, that there "is no free lunch" and that the benefits promised today are "unfeasible" for the future.

Because Mr. Bush has yet to spell out any details of how he would overhaul the system, his stated principles sound like a free lunch: benefits for people at or near retirement should not go down; taxes should not go up; people who do not want private accounts should be able to keep drawing benefits.

The leading Republican proposals, at first glance, sound even better. Benefits could actually be higher than before for low-income people, widows and divorced spouses. On top of all that, Social Security's looming shortfalls, estimated variously from $3.5 trillion to $10.4 trillion, would be wiped out.

But most of the Republican proposals would also reduce the role of Social Security as a source of guaranteed retirement income, slowly but surely.

A little truth telling, finally, even if it is buried deep in the paper and about two weeks late. It is also unfortunate that the Times simply referred to Sandy Jacques as a "single mother" when she is, in fact, a political hack.