San Diego Union Tribune

February 7, 2005

TV ads on Social Security set to air
Groups aim to sway opinion of Bush plan

By Finlay Lewis
COPLEY NEWS SERVICE

WASHINGTON – In the next few days, television viewers in a handful of selected communities across the country will experience a familiar break in their programming.

Advertisement
The 30-second political spot is coming back.

Barely three months after the end of the presidential campaign, partisans and interest groups are preparing another effort to sway public opinion. This time, the point is not to elect a candidate but to influence public attitudes about President Bush's plan to restructure Social Security.

At issue is the future of Social Security, the 70-year-old program that is the central domestic policy achievement of the Democratic Party.

"There are major stakes. . . . Democrats have been dining on Social Security forever. So this is a battle for not only the structure of Social Security but the political credit for it, and Republicans would dearly love to take it from Democrats," said Gary Jacobson, a political scientist at the University of California San Diego. "Certainly the politics of it are a straight continuation of the election."

With Bush already on the stump to sell his proposal, coalitions on both sides are poised to spend tens of millions of dollars to shape the outcome.

On one side is a collection of Democratic-leaning groups that include organized labor, the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People and the National Organization for Women. Notably, they will be joined by MoveOn.Org, whose use of the Internet made it a force in last year's election campaign, and AARP, representing older Americans. Rock the Vote, a nonpartisan promoter of youth voting, also will work to block the Bush plan for private retirement accounts.

They say Bush's plan outlined in last week's State of the Union address would decimate Social Security. His proposal would allow workers under 55 years old to divert a portion of their payroll taxes into personal investment accounts.

One activist involved in the effort to fight Bush's plan estimated that the campaign could cost about $30 million.

Lining up behind Bush are the Alliance for Worker Retirement Security and the Coalition for the Modernization and Protection of America's Social Security.

Comprising about 40 business groups, trade associations and political entities, the alliance will press Bush's case on Capitol Hill while the coalition will reach out across the country by using direct mail, telephone calls and TV ads.

Derrick Max, executive director of both groups, said the alliance spent about $5 million three years ago in a related battle, and added, "We'll do several multiples of that this year."

The Club for Growth, a free-market advocacy group that strongly supports Bush's plan, will begin airing an ad in the districts and the state of three Republican lawmakers whose votes for private accounts are thought to be in doubt: Rep. Sherwood Boehlert of New York, Rep. Joe Schwartz of Michigan and Sen. Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island.

The ads argue that creating personal investment accounts will help younger workers save for retirement. They also urge viewers to let their local politicians know how they feel. Alluding to Bush's claim that Social Security will go bankrupt in less than four decades if not restructured, the ad says: "Younger workers will pay thousands into Social Security. Without reform, they'll get just a fraction back when they retire."

While most agree that the Social Security system will come under increasing strain as baby boomers begin to retire, there is sharp dispute over the extent of the problem and the need for sweeping changes.

The Congressional Budget Office estimates that Social Security will start paying out more than it takes in in 2020. After that, full benefits will be covered by the system's trust fund. The CBO anticipates the trust fund will be exhausted in 2051 when the revenue coming into the system will cover 78 percent of benefits.

Pat Toomey, a former Republican congressman and now the Club for Growth president, indicated that the ad campaign would expand as the debate intensifies and could cost $10 million.

For the time being, he said: "It's really a gentle message about the virtues of personal accounts. But it's also a blunt reminder that the Club for Growth is paying attention."

Meanwhile, MoveOn.Org has already started airing an ad, attacking Bush's plan, across Montana – a state where the president barnstormed last week – and in three congressional districts. Targeted are two Republican lawmakers thought to be vulnerable next year – Reps. Chris Chocola of Indiana and Jim Gerlach of Pennsylvania – and a Democrat who has expressed support for Bush's plan, Rep. F. Allen Boyd of Florida.

Among other assertions, the ad claims that Bush's plan would entail a 46 percent cut in Social Security benefits "to pay for private accounts." The Republican National Committee last week described the ad as false, misleading and malicious, a charge that MoveOn.Org disputes.

"We're going to be relentlessly every week going after members of Congress who are wrong on this issue or who we think are more likely to be persuaded because they will have a tough election in 2006," said Tom Matzzie, head of Move-On.Org's Washington operation.

Daniel Clifton, executive director of the American Shareholders Association, has thrown his group's backing behind the Bush proposal. Clifton described the idea as one that could vastly expand the investor class as younger workers become more sophisticated about retirement planning.

Even so, Clifton and others involved in trying to build support for the Bush plan say Wall Street has not committed significant resources to the fight even though it would presumably play a major role in managing the investment funds.

A study last year by the Securities Industry Association found that private Social Security accounts as envisioned by the White House would generate only about 1.2 percent of industry revenue over the next 75 years. The study described the benefits to Wall Street as "paltry."

»Next Story»