The NH Delegation and Social Security Reform

In Washington, it seems to be on everybody's mind.

Before Senator Judd Gregg even launched into his speech in support in President Bush's budget, he predicted the social security debate would cast a shadow over all future budgets if nothing is done.

"it would be really unfair if my generation, the baby boom generation, were to pass on to our children and our children's children less of an opportunity to have a quality lifestyle because the cost of supporting us is so great that we have to dramatically raise their rate of taxation. And this is one of those issues like the oil filter ad where you can either pay me now or pay me later. I mean, the payment's going to come."

Gregg and President Bush say that payment shouldn't come from increased taxes.

What they do want, however, is to allow younger workers to put a portion of their social security into personal retirement accounts.

Since those funds would then be invested privately, they would be taken out of the system that currently pays for today's retirees.

Democrats wonder how the President will replace those funds to pay for his proposed reforms - which they say could total two trillion dollars.

That's two trillion that's not included in the president's budget proposal.

But Bush and supporters like Gregg say such figures are nonsense.

President Bush points to the Thrift savings plan as a model for social security reform.

The plan serves three million federal employees, allowing them to put a portion of their wages- tax deferred- into personal mutual fund accounts.

Senator John Sununu plans to reintroduce a bill that has many of the same ideas as the president's proposal.

Sununu stresses that the program would be voluntary, and geared towards younger workers.

And to avoid the vagaries of the stock market, Sununu says workers could switch to safer investments as they approach retirement.

And in any event, he argues the market produces better returns than social security ever could.

"Look even the critics that are trying to scare retirees have to admit that even an investment at the worst possible time in 2000 at the peak of the market would have regained its value by today. And so the idea that they are going to lose every penny they have because of a bad year in the stock market is tantamount to a scare tactic."

But the risks are real.

While personal retirement accounts do provide the opportunity for greater returns, personal accounts - unlike social security - can actually lose value.

Not everyone in the delegation is so convinced that privatizing social security is the best way to go.

Representative Jeb Bradley says he's worried about how the government will make sure every worker knows how to mange his personal account.

He says he's also concerned about how much borrowing would be required in order to keep paying current retirees, while younger workers divert money from the system.

"I think there are a lot of unanswered questions. I've made it clear that I don't support privatizing social security but at the same time I've also said that opportunities to increase the returns makes some sense. But let's see what the specific legislation looks like, and we're probably months away on that."

And that's the problem.

With no specific bill from President Bush, politicians, pundits and the public must fill in the blanks about what exactly these changes might mean to the average American.

And overall, the public in New Hampshire is skeptical.

A recent UNH poll found that over half of granite staters are opposed to creating private social security accounts.

Just a third of those surveyed support the President's plan.

And New Hampshire Congressmen are hearing from their constituents.

Representative Charlie Bass supports the President's plan in theory.

But he says he needs to know more specifics before he decides if he's officially on board.

He says most of the feedback he's getting back home - has been negative.

"But that's not unusual. The debate is new and when you're proposing bold changes in a program that's as serious and important for all americans as social security is I would expect that and I think there's going to be a good and productive debate. And I think as Americans come to realize how important it is to protect and preserve the program that they're going to see that doing nothing is the worst possible option available to us today."

However, very few people are suggesting doing nothing.

Some Democrats say the social security crisis has been overblown. They point to a congressional budget office review that says the fund is solvent until 2052

They also argue that if the economy does as well as Republicans predict it will, the social security fund will be flush with money.

And if the economy doesn't do well, betting on the stock market will just make things worse.

With both sides digging in their heels for a fight, one thing seems certain.

Republicans have succeeded in making social security the most talked about issue of the year.

For NHPR News, I'm JD in Washington