Nation: The Social Security Argument

A disembodied pair of hands rips a social security card in half as a television voice confides: “On at least seven occasions, Senator Barry Goldwater said that he would change the present social security system. But even his running mate, William Miller, admits that Senator Goldwater’s voluntary plan would destroy the social security system. President Johnson is working to strengthen social security.”

That Democratic TV commercial is evidence of the fact that the U.S.’s social security system, so long accepted by so many, has become a red-hot issue in a presidential campaign for the first time in 28 years. And it has badly hurt Republican Candidate Goldwater, even though he went out of his way to bring up the argument.

A Turkey in New Hampshire. Last November, in a New York Times Sunday Magazine interview, Goldwater said: “I think social security ought to be voluntary. This is the only definite position I have on it. If a man wants it, fine. If he does not want it, he can provide his own.”

During the early weeks of this year’s Republican presidential primary in New Hampshire, Goldwater reiterated this stand. It did not go over very well, particularly with the large segment of the New Hampshire population that depends on social security. Rival Nelson Rockefeller jumped on the Goldwater argument, charged that to make social security voluntary would be to make the system actuarially unsound, bankrupt it, and turn it into a “personal disaster to millions of senior citizens and their families.” Somehow sensing that he had said the wrong thing, Barry backed away, started replying to those who asked him about his sentiments for voluntary social security: “I don’t know where you ever got the idea. You must have been listening to the Governor of New York.”

Damaging Cues. After New Hampshire, Goldwater came out with a paper insisting that he not only wanted “a sound social security system” but indeed hoped to see the system “strengthened.” But right up to the time of the San Francisco convention, Rocky kept hammering away at Goldwater on social security, and so did Pennsylvania’s Governor William Scranton, who termed Barry’s voluntary scheme “the worst kind of fiscal irresponsibility.” Since Goldwater’s nomination, Democrats have picked up the issue, and President Johnson mentions social security in almost the same breath with “Peace and Prosperity.” Said he to a Harrisburg, Pa., audience last month: “We do have a choice this year. It is the choice between the mighty voice of the American majority saying yes and the fading echo of the few who still say no. The majority said yes long ago to social security. The echo still says no.”

As often as not, the Democrats take their cue from Rocky and Scranton, and Goldwater recently complained: “Rockefeller and Scranton have done me more damage than the Democrats ever could.”

Goldwater has charged that Johnson is no friend of social security, since the President insisted that medicare be attached to an already passed bill expanding the social security system and increasing its benefits. The whole bill, Goldwater says with some justification, died in conference committee because of the medicare rider.

The Controversy Rages. Just what are the merits of Goldwater’s notion of voluntary social security? Most authorities, whether liberal or conservative, or whether in or out of government, agree that it is totally impractical. According to at least one expert estimate, if the system were to be made voluntary and only 15% of today’s covered workers under 30 elected to drop out, the 1965 loss in contributions would amount to $1.5 billion; by 1968 the loss to the retirement benefit fund would amount to $8.5 billion, and by 1988 the social security program would be bankrupt.

Almost beyond argument, the social security system could be improved. As of now, improvement is all that Goldwater has made clear he wants; and it is plainly galling to him, as to many another American, to see the system misused as a vote catcher, as in the case of the medicare debacle. But Barry is not about to get well on this issue, especially so long as he fails to come up with a specific program of his own —a program that would keep the social security system going in one form or another.

Even though, since New Hampshire, Goldwater has virtually purged the word “voluntary” from his vocabulary, it has not done much good. Still the controversy rages, and the uncertainties over his true position abound. In Fort Dodge, Iowa, recently, a 500-signature petition was sent to the state’s two U.S. Senators, asking that social security not be made voluntary. Like it or not, it seems that Barry is going to have a tough time convincing voters that he did not mean what he said before he was sorry he said it.