Bring Everything to the TableBy Lea Abdnor

The media is buzzing about Social Security. Even the Washington Post had two pieces yesterday: an editorial and an op-ed.

It's almost as if the political negotiations are happening in the press, though. Some of the writings claim that the Administration is willing to give up personal accounts ("privatization" in their lingo) -take them off the table.  According to what I hear, this is absolutely not true. The administration evidently (Secretary Paulsen, in particular) continues to state that there are no preconditions for negotiation. Everything is on the table. That's good - what is a negotiation if it starts by taking off the table something the other side finds objectionable? How can Congressman Rangel or others say that that is the way to negotiate? In my decades watching Congress, it's not how they work...e.g. when there is a conference committee between the House and Senate to negotiate the differences in a piece of legislation, it would be absurd to think that either side would say: "You drop such-and-such from your bill, then we'll come together in Conference."

People who oppose personal accounts want them OFF the table because they know that there is a strong likelihood that the American public would support those who negotiate for voluntary personal accounts.

Think about this:   if the other side can set the condition that personal accounts are off the table, then response should be that tax increases are off the table too.

IF that is unacceptable, we’ll know that solving the problems ahead in Social Security—preconditioned or not—is not the goal.

The bottom line is this: everyone should come to the table and have an honest discussion about the reform options. Maybe then the American public would learn that voluntary personal accounts do not equal privatization.