The $102,000 Debate

By KAREN TUMULTY

Social Security has always been an issue that united the Democrats like no other. But suddenly, the most successful and popular government program in history is a subject of fractious debate in their party's presidential primary. Barack Obama suggests that Hillary Clinton is refusing to engage in "a real, honest conversation" about the challenges that lie ahead for the program. And Clinton is accusing Obama of buying into "Republican scare tactics."

At issue: Obama's proposal to increase the taxes that wealthier Americans pay into the system. Currently, workers are taxed on only the first $97,500 of what they earn, a limit that will rise to $102,000 next year. Getting rid of the income cap, he says, would be enough to "virtually eliminate" the funding shortfall and guarantee the solvency of the system without cutting benefits. John Edwards would also increase the taxes but only on income over $200,000. And Clinton--well, she refuses to be pinned down on what, if anything, she would do with Social Security. Instead, she says she would put her emphasis on balancing the budget and appoint a bipartisan commission to figure out what to do with Social Security.

Turning it over to a commission is the kind of duck-and-cover drill that politicians have usually been able to get away with on Social Security. But Obama and Edwards aren't going along this time. "We're not really picking a fight about Social Security," says Obama strategist David Axelrod. "We're picking a fight about candor. [Obama] has been forthright about this, and Senator Clinton hasn't."

In Social Security, Obama believes he has found the perfect issue to demonstrate the transcendent brand of politics he offers. "We will not be able to solve this problem and protect Social Security for good until we stop treating it like a political wedge issue and instead unite Republicans and Democrats behind a sensible solution," Obama wrote in an Op-Ed column in Iowa's Quad-City Times.

But critics, including liberals who have allied with Obama on other issues, say any solvency crisis could be decades away. They accuse Obama of buying into the dire scenarios with which the Bush Administration tried--unsuccessfully--to partially privatize the system. New York Times columnist Paul Krugman went so far as to write that Obama had been "played for a fool." Adds a Clinton strategist: "This whole conversation is bewildering. Every Democrat in America has spent the past several years arguing that Social Security is not in a crisis."

All of this is going to be watched closely, especially in Iowa. Proportionally, the state has one of the nation's oldest populations. In 2004, 64% of those who attended Iowa's Democratic caucuses were over the age of 50. While much has been said and written about Obama's appeal to younger voters, he is also gearing his campaign toward the senior set, even proposing to eliminate income taxes for older Americans making less than $50,000 a year.

As a campaign issue, Social Security has a treacherous history. The last time it figured in any substantial way in a Democratic presidential primary was back in 1992. Arkansas Governor Bill Clinton seized on a single passage in Massachusetts Senator Paul Tsongas' campaign literature in which Tsongas floated the idea of holding down cost-of-living adjustments for entitlement programs. Bill Clinton declared that the idea proved Tsongas was an enemy of Social Security. He hammered that misleading charge in a barrage of negative ads and clinched the Democratic nomination. Candor in politics can carry a big price.