[Congressional Record Volume 145, Number 59 (Wednesday, April 28, 1999)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E790-E791]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                        NEW HEIGHTS IN HYPOCRISY

                                 ______
                                 

                           HON. DOUG BEREUTER

                              of nebraska

                    in the house of representatives

                       Wednesday, April 28, 1999

  Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, this Member commends to his colleagues an 
excellent editorial questioning the President's recent comments about 
Congressional inaction on Social Security reform which appeared in the 
Washington Post, on April 27, 1999.

               [From The Washington Post, Apr. 27, 1999]

                       A Rout on Social Security

       The President now denounces the congressional Republicans 
     for refusing to take a step on Social Security that the 
     president himself has consistently shunned. The Republican 
     leaders say they won't bring up a bill this year to 
     restructure the program so that in the long term revenue will 
     cover costs; they don't want to take the political risk this 
     close to the next election.
       The president deplores the fact that they have ``abandoned 
     the effort,'' are ``either unable or unwilling to face up to 
     the challenge,'' etc. ``I have proposed concrete steps,'' 
     said the statement issued in his name last Friday. But he no 
     more than they has said how he would make what he once again 
     called ``the tough choices needed to secure the trust fund 
     over the long term.'' The most he will say is that there 
     should be bipartisan discussions of the subject, which is to 
     say, he wants to share the blame.
       Yesterday the vice president joined in beating up on the 
     Republicans for flinching. Since the vice president aspires 
     now to lead the country, perhaps it's fair to ask him, what 
     is he for? It may not surprise you to learn that he hasn't 
     said either.
       Mr. Clinton has proposed that the bulk of the projected 
     budget surplus over the next 15 years be set aside to pay 
     future Social Security costs in the only way the government 
     can set it aside, which is use it to pay down debt. It's a 
     good proposal as far as it goes. Debt reduction translates 
     into an increase in national savings that will help the 
     economy grow and make it easier for the government to 
     increase borrowing again when it needs the money to pay the 
     cost of the baby boomers' retirement.
       By invoking Social Security, he rightly keeps the money 
     from being used for other purposes, either new spending 
     programs or tax cuts. But his plan, even in the event that 
     the surplus were to materialize as forecast, would close only 
     a little more than half the long-term gap between Social 
     Security revenues and costs. The rest will require benefit 
     cuts and/or tax increases. It's at that point that the voices 
     of the president and his acolyte, the vice president, cease 
     to be heard. It's a lot more fun to save an imaginary surplus 
     than to tell future retirees and/or taxpayers that they'll 
     have to make do with less.
       The Republicans want to ``privatize'' Social Security, 
     meaning shift toward a system in which at least a share of 
     benefits will flow from individual investment accounts rather 
     than the government. To a large extent, the shift would be 
     illusory. The money for the ``private'' accounts would come 
     from a compulsory national savings program, and to guard 
     against loss, the government, in most versions of the plan, 
     would likewise limit the range of investment.
       Our own sense is that the costs and risks of such a step 
     seriously outweigh the possible benefits. That's the 
     president's apparent view as well. He thus berates the 
     Republicans for failing to put forth a plan of which he 
     disapproves. But they like the idea, and some in positions of 
     leadership have at least been tinkering with alternatives. 
     One version already has been put forward with some Democratic 
     support, and another may be unveiled on the House side this 
     week, if only for discussion.
       The president offers no counterpart on this or, thus far, 
     on Medicare, either. ``We need some leadership of the 
     president,'' Senate majority Leader Trent Lott said on a 
     Sunday talk show as he announced that he, too, intended to 
     duck the issue this year. The year began with statements of 
     determination by both parties to follow the president's 
     slogan of ``saving Social Security first.'' It's

[[Page E791]]

     not happening. They'll spend the time blaming each other 
     instead--and both will be right. To suggest as the president 
     did the other day that only the Republicans are flinching is 
     to give hypocrisy a bad name.

     

                          ____________________