'Third Rail' Takes Center Stage in Election 2000; Can Moms Overcome Clout and Money of NRA?
GOV. GEORGE W. BUSH (R-TX), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: I am here with a message for America and to put my opponent on notice: The days of spreading fear and panic are over.</s>FRANK SESNO, CNN ANCHOR: George W. Bush tackles Social Security. Is his proposal more about ideas than details?</s>BROOKS JACKSON, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Those details that George W. Bush isn't giving are important. Depending on the approach, proposals like his can be expensive or painful.</s>SESNO: Our Brooks Jackson on the potential costs of Social Security reform. Plus:</s>AL GORE, VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: I believe you deserve a guarantee that Social Security will be there for you.</s>SESNO: The vice president weighs in, as the "third rail" takes center stage in election 2000.</s>ANNOUNCER: From Washington, this is INSIDE POLITICS, with Judy Woodruff and Bernard Shaw.</s>SESNO: Thanks very much for joining us. Bernie and Judy are off today. The two presidential candidates locked horns today in a pattern that is becoming increasingly familiar: First, George W. Bush proposing significant changes to shore up Social Security, and within hours Al Gore denounced the Bush plan and pushing his own proposal. Today's duel began in California, with Bush's plan to let workers wager part of their government lifeline on the often-volatile stock market. First, CNN's Candy Crowley.</s>CANDY CROWLEY, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): George Bush thinks young workers should be able to take a small portion of the money they pay into Social Security and invest it.</s>BUSH: A worker who invests even a limited portion of his or her paycheck could over a career end up with hundreds of thousands of dollars for retirement.</s>CROWLEY: Not since Barry Goldwater has a party's presidential choice proposed a major change in Social Security, and with good reason. Conventional wisdom goes this way: Seniors and near-seniors don't want the system changed, and they vote, which is why, as he spoke of his six principles for reform at a California senior center, George Bush said this one:</s>BUSH: Let me put this as plainly as I can: For those on Social Security or close to receiving it, nothing will change.</s>CROWLEY: Not once, but twice.</s>BUSH: Let me say this again: For those who are retired or near retirement, there will be no changes at all to your Social Security.</s>CROWLEY: Bush's other principles: The Social Security surplus must be for Social Security only, Social Security payroll taxes must not be increased, the government must not invest Social Security funds in the stock market, and reform must preserve disability and survivor benefits.</s>UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Nice to see you.</s>BUSH: Good morning, thanks.</s>CROWLEY: First, that voters will see Bush's proposal as a sign of bold leadership. Second, that he can raise his voice above the din to reassure skittish seniors. And third, that aging baby boomers and their children believe what their parents and grandparents did not: that there are few better long-term investments than the stock market.</s>BUSH: Al Gore, who calls these bipartisan proposals risky, has a substantial amount of his money invested in the stock market. If he's building his own retirement security in the market, why does he object to young Americans doing the same?</s>CROWLEY: Bush aides also believe they can make inroads among low-income Americans with this plan, offering up a way to build wealth, which they can retire on or pass on to their children.</s>CROWLEY: Bush aides say that the -- Bush offered very few details because this is merely a framework and that the details need to be worked out on a bipartisan way, lest this plan befall the same fate as the health care plan of Hillary Rodham Clinton, which saw no bipartisan agreement and was picked to death by people who didn't like one thing or another -- Frank.</s>SESNO: Well, Candy, we all know what the stock market's about. It can go up, it can go down over time. Presumably, it goes more up than down. But how do Bush's advisers address the issue of possible losses under a plan like this?</s>CROWLEY: Well, basically, they say the idea of losses is minuscule. They point out that not since the Depression has there been a 20-year period in which the stock market has not shown a return on investment. Bush himself said, look, no day-trading. There will be no single investments. They have in mind more government-approved mutual funds. He says that in those details there will be government regulations and requirements for the safety and the security of whatever is invested in.</s>SESNO: And is he saying whether these funds will be invested by the individual or by the government?</s>CROWLEY: Well, the individual gets to choose. Now whether you pay all your payroll taxes and somehow you direct someone within the government system to put them into this or that fund or you actually get that money and you invest it yourself is one of those details that they just haven't put out there yet. They really do believe that, first of all, there's some cover here, as you know, political cover. The more details you put out, the more there is for Al Gore to fire on. And secondly they also believe that if the plan is to have any chance in Congress, should George Bush become president, that there needs to be a bunch of Democrats and Republicans on board so that they can all take the fire for whatever seems to be inpalatable.</s>SESNO: All right, Candy Crowley on George W. Bush on Social Security, thanks. In suburban Philadelphia, meanwhile, Al Gore had plenty to say about the Bush proposal to retool Social Security. But Gore's critique centered on a single word -- you've heard it before: risky. CNN's Jonathan Karl is with the Gore campaign in Ambler, Pennsylvania. Hello, Jonathan.</s>JONATHAN KARL, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Hello, Frank. That's right. You know, Gore's central argument here is that Bush's ideas on Social Security would put at risk the federal government's largest and perhaps most popular program by subjecting it to the ups and downs of the stock market.</s>GORE: I believe that we have to maintain Social Security as a bedrock guarantee of retirement security. On top of that foundation, people can and should build more: savings, investments, IRAs. But you shouldn't have to roll the dice with your basic retirement security. And you shouldn't have to pay for others who do so.</s>KARL: Now in the past, Gore has criticized Bush for pursuing what he call a "secret plan" that would undermine Social Security or alternatively talking about a risky scheme. But today, Gore was positively restrained, avoiding all those buzz phrases he's used in the past, and promising to have a civil debate on the issue, even as he took apart Bush's plan.</s>GORE: We're not talking about a minor difference here. We're talking about a fundamental difference on the most successful social program in the entire history of the United States of America. Why not have a debate on the future of Social Security, how to reform it? What is the right way? What is the responsible way? That's an issue that is important enough to the future of our country that we ought to have a debate on it.</s>KARL: Now Gore's aides acknowledge that he was more restrained today in his attacks, that he was less negative, that he was trying to keep a more positive tone, again, even as he was drawing those contrasts. But they say that that sharper edge that we've seen from Al Gore will not be gone for long, that this is a long debate. They Look forward to the debate on Social Security, and in fact they will pick it apart for the months to come. As one of his senior aides said, the vice president will take apart this plan bit by bit by bit. And after three or four months, the plan will be ripped to shreds. That a quote from one of his senior aides. On another footnote here, Governor Bush had talked about how Vice President Gore has investments in the stock market, and that why should Gore invest himself but not allow others to invest? The vice president's campaign saying here that the vice president does not have any holdings in the stock market, does not have any money, whatsoever, invested personally in the stock market -- Frank.</s>SESNO: Jon Karl, thanks very much, with the Gore response. As we mentioned, it was Governor Bush who sparked today's debate with his plan to reform Social Security. But the changes Bush are proposing raise several questions that the candidate didn't answer. CNN's Brooks Jackson looks at the nuts and bolts of some of the options being floated.</s>MORTON (voice-over): Those details that George W. Bush isn't giving are important. Depending on the approach, proposals like his can be expensive or painful. Example: The plan offered by a bipartisan group of senators, including Republicans Gregg, Thompson, Thomas and Grassley, and Democrats Breaux, Kerrey and Robb. Under this bipartisan plan, payroll taxes would stay as they are: $12.40 of every $100 in taxable wages, half paid by employees, half by employers. Under this plan, $2 of that would go not to the government but into "individual savings accounts" owned by workers, to be invested in diversified funds of stocks or bonds. The advantage is no new taxes or spending. The disadvantage is major cuts in the level of future Social Security benefits provided by current law. For anyone now below age 62, future cost of living adjustments would be held down, reduced half a percentage point per year. Additional "longevity" cuts would be triggered if the trend to longer life spans continues. No wonder the sponsors have been called "the pain caucus." Bush avoids talk of pain, more of how he'd pay.</s>ROBERT GREENSTEIN, CENTER ON BUDGET AND POLICY PRIORITIES: In the absence of any more detail, it simply looks like the numbers don't add up until he provides more detail on how could he finance a plan like this.</s>MORTON (on camera): And avoiding any future cuts in basic Social Security benefits would cost a bundle. Just look at another so-called 2 percent plan: (voice-over): Harvard economist Martin Feldstein has proposed an add-on plan: In addition to the $12.40 now going to Social Security for every $100 of taxable wages, the government would pay an added $2.30 into private retirement accounts to be invested in mutual funds. The advantage is a guarantee of no cuts in future retirement benefits, which would actually increase some. The disadvantage is a huge new expanse, $81 billion in the first year alone, according to Feldstein's own projections, growing every year to $117 billion a year within 30 years. (on camera): Bush has rejected the pain-free, add-on approach and left the door open for cuts like those proposed by the pain caucus. But doing nothing also involves either pain or cost. (voice-over): Left alone, the Social Security trust fund runs out of money in 37 years, according to latest official projections. At that point, benefits would have to be cut 28 percent to avoid a tax increase, with even greater cuts in years after that. Vice President Al Gore has proposed increasing some benefits and using general tax revenues to keep the system going until the year 2050.</s>GENE STEUERLE, URBAN INSTITUTE: Neither candidate wants to give much in the way of details. The truth be told, during campaign time, candidates try to identify who they're going to help.</s>JACKSON: There is no pain-free, cost-free solution to the Social Security problem, but now at least the trade-offs are about to be debated in the most public way possible: a presidential campaign -- Frank.</s>SESNO: Brooks, something that once upon a time was a good idea or so some thought was Daniel Patrick Moynihan's notion of reducing the way the government calculates inflation, because they say it's overstated, that would reduce the cost of living adjustments and save some money. Whatever became of that?</s>JACKSON: Well, some reductions have been made. In the way the CPI is calculated it doesn't quite overmeasure inflation the way it used to. There is still some overstatement of inflation there. But on the other hand, you could argue that for old people, medical costs and medication costs both of which increase at more than the CPI are a bigger part of what they spend. So it may not be the cost of living for an older person.</s>SESNO: Not part of either candidate's calculus right now?</s>JACKSON: Not right now, no sir.</s>SESNO: OK, we'll see, we'll watch. Brooks, thanks. And when we return, good intentions, or just good politics? We'll have more on the long-running struggle over the future of Social Security.</s>SEN. DANIEL PATRICK MOYNIHAN (D), NEW YORK: This is not political, Social Security should never be political.</s>SESNO: Next on INSIDE POLITICS, a debate that has burned some candidates and buoyed the careers of others.