Today, John McCain flip-flopped for a second time on Social Security privatization. Maybe John McCain didn’t think anyone would notice the switch, since it came out during a hard hitting interview on Live with Regis and Kelly:
MCCAIN: What should be partisan about the fact that Social Security is going to go broke? I mean, should we be divided up among Republican and Democrat…
REGIS: Do you have a plan?
MCCAIN: Yes, sir. It’s gonna require, though, cooperation and participation by the other side. And I’ll reach my hand out…
REGIS: Is it privatization of the Social Security program?
MCCAIN: No, no it isn’t. But I would say that I support…I’d put everything on the table to start with…but second of all…young workers ought to be able to put part of their salary, part of their taxes into Social Security, into an account with their name on it. But that would not in any way effect older workers. But you’ve got to have a negotiation.
Watch it:
But just two months ago, McCain voiced a very different view on Social Security during an interview with the Wall Street Journal. When asked the specifics of his program, McCain adamantly claimed: “I’m totally in favor of personal savings accounts. … I campaigned in support of President Bush’s proposal and I campaigned with him, and I did town hall meetings with him.”
Noting the McCain’s website does not declare his support for private account, the Wall Street Journal reporter asked this follow-up question:
WSJ: Your Web site says something different [than your statement].
MCCAIN: I’ll correct any policy paper that I’ve put out that might intimate that personal savings accounts are not a very important factor.
So has John McCain rewritten his website to reflect his waffling viewpoint? No he hasn’t. Between now and two months ago Senator McCain has had two very different perspectives on Social Security, but nearly the identical, rhetorical fluff on his policy page. McCain seems to have decided it’s easier to change his Social Security policy than to change his website.


Nevermind two months ago, he weaseled back and forth in that one statement:
“No, no it isn’t [privatization]. But”…”workers ought to be able to put part of their salary, part of their taxes into Social Security, into an account with their name on it [also known as privatization].”
May 15th, 2008 at 9:23 amIt is with frustration that the Social Security issue is still discussed as if Social security is in crisis, or even will be, unless the economy itself comes into disaster.
Whether McCain flipflops is not the issue. It is the lack of understanding by the media and the constant drumbeat of disaster politics around “entitlements” that is both created for interests other than workers paying for their own retirement.
The numbers by the trustees for social social security are very clear, and belie the GAO report interpretations by David Walker on the issue as well.
But it takes a wonk to read the numbers. It does not take a wonk to follow the reasoning and gain the idea that Social Security is insurance for a minimum income and that is one government program that has worked, and will continue to work, in the manner designed.
Boomers have already paid their part, and there is not a demographic crunch coming up. At the worst the issue is general fund choices to make, but a small increase of 1% payroll taxes for a worker in 2030, 2041, or so will take care of this prediction anyway.
At Angry Bear, an economics blog, is a series of posts defining some of the issues using the trustee reports numbers supplied by them and illustrates how the system works, and will continue to work, if left alone.
Angry Bear
May 18th, 2008 at 8:32 am