|
|
Whose Cap Is It Anyway?
New York Times Editorial
February 18, 2005
Sandy Huffaker
After refusing to face the truth about his Social Security plan for the entire election campaign, President Bush has finally acknowledged that diverting part of workers' Social Security taxes into private investment accounts will do absolutely nothing to fix the projected imbalance in the system when the baby-boom generation retires. This week, he made a very tiny gesture toward a partial solution to that problem: he declined to reject the idea of raising the current $90,000 cap on wages subject to Social Security payroll taxes.
Raising the cap somewhat would probably have to be part of any responsible plan for changing the Social Security system. Thanks to soaring incomes at the high end, a larger amount of income escapes taxation these days.
All Mr. Bush said, when asked about the idea, was that the concept was "on the table" - along with every other option except raising the payroll tax rate. If it seems surprising that such a comment could cause trouble, remember that those same three words - uttered just over 14 years ago by another George Bush - sparked a revolt and brought down a presidency. Ever since, Republicans have shied away from mentioning the word "tax," even in the most innocuous of contexts.
Sure enough, Mr. Bush's mini-concession caused an uproar. Republican House leaders instantly vetoed the idea. And Democrats declined to say anything positive for fear that Mr. Bush would stage a quick retreat, leaving them holding the bag.
Even something as modest as a bump in that $90,000 cap is impossible as long as Republicans and Democrats are both determined to make the other guy go first. The only solution, as far as we can see, would be for every elected official in the Capitol to get together in one room and yell, "Raise the cap!" - on the count of three.
|
|
