Greenspan's gyrations
WASHINGTON
THE ONLY human who can credibly claim to have been pleased at last week's brouhaha over nothing on Social Security is Alan Greenspan.
|
ADVERTISEMENT
|  |
The famously cryptic Federal Reserve chairman managed what others might call a Full Greenspan, or what I call a Full Greenspin -- a rare feat in this era of homogenized media.
The headline over his testimony in The New York Times proclaimed, "Greenspan Backs Idea of Accounts for Retirement." The headline in The
There was no danger of getting slammed by loyalty-obsessed Bushies nor by the relentless Bush-bashers who dominate the Democratic side of Capitol Hill. As a result, his real message seeped into political consciousness without a stark headline.
Greenspan's real message, in the patois of his native New York City, was "Fuhgeddaboudit" -- no real crisis for years to come, time to have a public discussion and see if consensus gradually emerges, and anyway I'm much too conservative to be the best source of specific solutions. The only really good question asked during two days of desultory testimony came from Representative Barney Frank: Would Greenspan have supported Social Security when FDR advanced it 70 years ago? His answer was he wasn't sure.
As a serious, successful national leader, Greenspan is eminently capable of taking a position on a big issue. Most recently, early in 2001, he basically supported steep income tax cuts out of a concern about the impact of enormous projected budget surpluses and of rapidly paying down the national debt rapidly. Some of us disagreed and thought he was being suckered by a dangerously duplicitous crowd; but his position was clear.
It is also sometimes remembered that private citizen Alan Greenspan, with the late Daniel Patrick Moynihan, co-chaired the 1983 commission that provided a fix for a very real Social Security crisis that is still helping the system operate. Back then the government had to borrow money to make one fiscal quarter's worth of benefits payments. Taxes were raised, future benefits were scaled back and a large surplus appeared. There would be no long-range difficulty today had Reagan, Bush I, Clinton, and Bush II not embezzled the money to cover operating deficits (as Moynihan first noted).
By contrast, Bush has had nearly four months since his reelection to use his power to persuade Americans that there is indeed a serious Social Security situation requiring solution soon. Bush himself has often said that he must make that case before he can have anything to use on a reluctant Republican Congress.
So far, he has flopped. The latest NBC News-Wall Street Journal opinion survey, and there are others, still has Social Security far down the list of people's priorities. In that context it matters little that there is no clear support for conservative policy ideas; the real point is that without a true crisis or a clear public perception of one, nothing will happen in the short run.
There was also far too much made of Bush's alleged move on the income cap (currently slightly above $90,000) over payroll taxes. The almost instant rejection of the idea of even considering it by House Speaker Dennis Hastert and Majority Leader Tom DeLay, for violating the theological objection to any tax increases, was not followed by any pushback at all on the president's part. So much for leadership.
This is not for the moment an issue where the important division is between Democrats and Republicans or conservatives and moderate and liberals. Given current reality, the only significant division is among Republicans and conservatives, who control Congress and can begin to move a proposal forward if there ever were one.
The divisions, however, involve fundamentals. There is disagreement about the nature of the problem. There is disagreement about whether payroll taxes alone should be on the table when income taxes loom as another issue. There is disagreement about whether so-called private investment accounts should be created by diverting current payroll tax revenue from paying current benefits. There is disagreement about whether one dime of additional debt should be taken on to finance mammoth transition costs. There is even disagreement about whether the purpose of change should be to shore up Social Security or end social insurance as the country has known it.
Until Republican consensus emerges, which for the moment is doubtful, there is no reason for any of the party's congressional people to begin the Herculean task of legislating. The Democrats are not the obstacle here.
That is why Alan Greenspan could be content to hide his message behind a delightful fog of subordinate clauses that managed to confuse the press, confuse the Republicans and confuse the Democrats -- the trifecta of obscurantism.
Thomas Oliphant's e-mail address is oliphant@globe.com. 
