The results of the 2002 congressional elections surprised many
people. In the 20 years since the late house speaker Tip O'Neill
termed Social Security the “third rail of American politics,” you
were more likely to find politicians attacking mom or apple pie
than talking seriously about Social Security reform. As the national
retirement program slipped closer to financial insolvency and the
rate of return for young workers threatened to turn negative, politi-
cians in Washington alternately turned a blind eye to the program's
plight or mindlessly demagogued any whiff of reform.

For the 2002 elections, Democrats certainly tried to keep the rail
charged. In race after race across the country, Democratic candidates
attacked their Republican opponents for having “a secret plan to
privatize Social Security.” Advertisements equated proposals to
allow younger workers to privately invest a portion of their Social
Security taxes through individual accounts to Enron or a “Las Vegas
gamble,” designed to help the candidate's “wealthy Wall Street
backers.” Allies from anti-reform groups, like the labor-backed Cam-
paign for America's Future, added millions of dollars of their own
commercials, as well as ground troops.

Democratic Party spokesmen called the campaign “a referendum
on the future of Social Security.” The Democratic National Conven-
tion Web site even featured a cartoon of President Bush pushing
senior citizens off a cliff to their deaths. But in the end, in every
race where Social Security was a major issue, the pro-account candi-
date won.

Originally published as Cato Institute Social Security Paper no. 29, January 6, 2003, and
updated to reflect current information.

-357-