A former acting head of the Social Security Administration stopped in Iowa today to talk about the future of the program. Bill Halter headed the agency from 1999 to 2001 and says he thinks the Bush administration’s plan to set up private accounts with money diverted from the fund is the wrong approach. Halter says we need to extend the life of the Social Security trust fund as well as reduce the national debt, but he says the current president’s proposal would shorten the life of the fund instead of extending its solvency date. He says it also would add two-Trillion dollars in indebtedness, though he says our children already face too large a debt. Halter says the Social Security program is “vitally important” to some fifty-Million Americans. In fact, Halter says, one in five Iowans get some Social Security benefits and it provides what he calls “vital income support” to them. He adds the debate’s galvanized debate across the country and he’s finding a lot of Iowans want to talk about “what the basic tradeoffs are.” While several fixes have been proposed that would put money into the Social Security fund, Halter sidesteps any details about a solution he’d recommend. He says an overall “aggregate” proposal needs to be balanced, so any enhancement to the program’s shared by all. He says no single change, to taxes, benefits or other details of the program, will offer a good cure for the projected shortfall of money in the fund. It’s been done before, Halter says. In 1983, a bipartisan commission chaired by Alan Greenspan came up with a package of changes that extended the life of the trust fund for another fifty years into the future. They changed the wage base the witholding was based on, they adjusted payroll tax rates, and he says they also trimmed benefits. Halter says the solution worked because voters and politicians agreed the changes were fair, taken altogether. He repeats that any solution must be agreed upon by both political parties, and perceived as fair to just about everyone. He says the solution can’t be done by one party — and it shouldn’t. Doing it in bipartisan fashion will ensure the program isn’t “whipsawed,” says Halter, when one or the other party’s in power. To have stability in the program, legislative changes must have the support of both Republicans and Democrats. Halter stopped in Iowa on a speaking tour sponsored by “Americans United to Save Social Security.” See their website at www.americansforsocialsecurity.com
