IS TAKING SOCIAL SECURITY PRIVATE DEAD?

At a Cato Institute forum in Washington Feb. 12, Sperling said, "We are highly, highly skeptical of a carve-out approach" that would shift a portion of workers' payroll taxes into private retirement accounts, National Review's online edition reported. 

While Sperling didn't say Clinton would veto a partial-privatization plan, he came mighty close. And the timing of his statement is curious. 

Clinton didn't include private "carve-outs" in the plan he announced in the State of the Union address in January. Nor had he ruled them out. 

Back then, the impeachment trial had just gotten under way. Clinton needed to appear presidential and bipartisan to keep senator-jurors from booting him out of office. 

But Clinton's now off the hook, and it may be payback time for Republicans who called for his ouster. The president, who's obsessed with his legacy, looks like he will abandon "saving Social Security" in any meaningful way and instead focus on restoring Democratic control to Congress. 

The Democratic Party's Big Labor allies have already pledged $46 million in campaign spending to win back Congress. To get union backing, though, there appears to be a price: kill Social Security privatization. 

According to the weekly trade publication Investment News, union bosses have written the chief executives at nine top investment firms, asking if they back taking Social Security private. The letter said that even partial privatization would expose workers to "unaffordable risk." 

The letters suggest that unions might pull their pensions from money managers who back privatization. 

What's going on? Labor bosses don't want to lose leverage over the retirement incomes of their members. Taking Social Security private would give rank-and-file union members the chance to amass retirement savings on their own. Then they might not have to depend on pensions obtained for them by their union bosses. 

Clinton also may push for a government board to invest surplus Social Security taxes in equities markets. If that happens, labor bosses have made it clear that they expect the board to invest in unionized companies. 

To be sure, all the fans of taking the government's retirement system private aren't Republican pols. Fed chief Alan Greenspan has repeatedly attacked the president's call for government investment of payroll taxes. 

And the most prominent lawmakers backing a partial privatization bill in the Senate are Democrats, Pat Moynihan of New York and Bob Kerrey of Nebraska. 

But Moynihan and Kerrey are clearly in the minority among Democrats. Most prefer instead to keep the current system pretty much in place - or give the government a big stake in the stock market. 

The president could rise above all this gamesmanship. He could work to give Americans control over their own retirements. But it seems that, as is typical for this president, politics matter more than doing what's right. 

Email Pinocchio  Cartoons  Clinton to Appear on Jerry Springer  China Promises Not to Target Nukes at U.S.  India & Pakistan Developing Fed-Ex Nuclear Delivery System

"On Opting Out"  Alan Greenspan  Fed. Reserve Board Chmn.  "My own preference is strongly in the direction of moving towards a privately financed system."  Edward H. Crane  Pres., Cato Institute  "Social Security privatization is, nowadays, the single most important step toward a society of liberty. It combines personal freedom with widespread property ownership, and those are the pillars of a free society."