Mitt Romney is keeping up the pressure on Rick Perry over his long history of Social Security criticism, demanding Perry explain how the program could be run by individual states.
“This election is about choices and voters – and voters will have the opportunity to choose between Mitt Romney, who wants to fix and strengthen Social Security for the next generation, and Rick Perry, who wants to dismantle it,” Romney spokeswoman Gail Gitcho said in a statement. “Voters are now learning more about Rick Perry’s position on Social Security and find it troubling that he has refused to answer questions on what the Social Security program would look like at the state level, as Rick Perry suggests.”
The Romney release goes on to press Perry on the finer points of his repeated suggestion that Social Security could be ended at the federal level and instead relegated to the states, asking, for example, what would happen to people who lived in one state and then moved to another to retire.
Perry’s camp pushed back, accusing Romney of breaking faith with the GOP.
“Mitt Romney’s own book compared Social Security to a criminal enterprise,” a spokesman said in a statement to the Huffington Post. “Now Mr. Romney is again sounding like a Democrat, distorting the truth and trying to scare senior citizens. As he has so many times in the past, Mr. Romney seems to forget he’s a Republican.
He added: “Mr. Romney has been running for president full time for nearly five years, and has failed to issue a specific plan on Social Security. Rick Perry and other conservatives are courageous enough to be honest about federal spending and entitlements, whether Mr. Romney and the liberals like it or not. Gov. Perry and other GOP leaders know Social Security must be fixed. Gov. Perry has been clear that he will protect benefits for those at and nearing retirement, and work with citizens, experts and elected leaders to fix Social Security financing for future generations.”
It’s worth paying particular attention to this episode, because it’s a critical illustration of where the Social Security debate is heading in the GOP primary. Much of the focus in the press so far on Perry’s Social Security record has been on his repeated use of the phrase “Ponzi scheme” and “monstrous lie” to describe the program, language that polls show isn’t particularly popular with voters. But that’s not where the real fight is: Perry is hardly the only major GOP politician to throw around the “Ponzi scheme” phrase — even relative moderates like Mitch Daniels have done it.
Where Romney is choosing to take his stand isn’t on Perry’s choice of words to describe Social Security, it’s on his more out there proposals to fix it. He isn’t just on the record backing the usual Republican proposals to handle Social Security, like raising the retirement age or means testing, he’s on the record saying the entire thing needs to be scrapped in favor of something radically different. In November, he said states should be able to opt out of Social Security. He confirmed that he’d consider the idea after he launched his presidential campaign as well. He’s also indicated in interviews and in his book that the reason he’s floating his states plan is that Social Security and Medicare were unconstitutional in the first place.
By demanding Perry offer more details, Romney forces Perry to either draw more attention to his more radical ideas or to reverse his position on the issue, making him appear weak and unprincipled. So far Perry’s strategy has been to emphasize more palatable Social Security ideas in his op-eds and statements, but he has yet to disavow his “let the states do it” idea and will almost certainly be pressed on his current position in Thursday’s debate.
Here’s Romney’s full set of questions for Perry:
1. Constitutionality: Perry has asserted that a federally run Social Security program is unconstitutional. If this remains his position, it suggests that the program must be devolved to the states notwithstanding the advisability of such an approach. The first question in understanding Perry’s approach must be whether he believes there is no choice but to devolve or, alternatively, if he believes it is the right policy solution.
2. Unfunded Liabilities: Devolving the program to the states does not address underlying fiscal challenges. Where a single program once faced possible insolvency, there would now be fifty. How would Perry suggest a state such as Texas address this challenge? Should it raise taxes, reduce benefits, or pursue other types of reform?
3. Trust Fund Accounting: What would happen to the Trust Fund that accrued while the system was in surplus? Interest payments from the fund and draw-down on the principal are crucial funding streams for the national system that are unavailable to the states. How would those funds be equitably allocated to the states?
4. Mobility: How would a state-by-state system accommodate the enormous number of Americans who move across state lines during their lives, and especially as retirement nears? Would each state be responsible for supporting its current disabled and elderly population on its current payroll? Would funds paid into the system in one state follow a resident to another state later in life?
5. State Obligations: Would states be free to forego a pension program altogether? If so, what if any provision would be made for the disabled and elderly in that state? Or would they be expected to move to other states with more generous benefits, inevitably overwhelming those systems?
6. Administration: Would individuals retain national Social Security numbers or would each state administer its own system? Would individuals have any guarantee that commitments made during their working life are honored in retirement? Who would pay for the added expense associated with administering fifty programs instead of one?
