Ownership Society versus New Deal ; Bush's Push to Reform Social Security and Other Programs Frames a Deeper Clash between Individualism and Safety Net
Peter Grier writer of The Christian Science Monitor, The Christian Science Monitor
President Bush's domestic agenda, particularly his proposal to reshape Social Security with private accounts, might mark the most profound change in the relationship between Americans and the federal government since the New Deal helped pull the United States out of economic depression some 70 years ago.
Where the New Deal offered government aid to bring the nation out of an unemployment morass, Mr. Bush's "ownership society" offers increased individual choice and responsibility as an answer to the financial needs of the modern age.
But with increased freedom may come increased risk - and that's perhaps the nub of the debate over Bush's programs. What's the proper role of Washington in ensuring the security of US citizens? How much should Americans simply depend on themselves?
Opponents say Bush wants to unravel a safety net that's worked well for more than half a century. Proponents say he is simply promoting the national credo of individualism.
"People would really have choice, and the benefit to direct their own lives," says Karl Zinsmeister, an American Enterprise Institute fellow and expert on social issues.
"Ownership society" is a unifying theme that the Bush administration uses to cover a variety of domestic proposals. The establishment of private accounts within Social Security is clearly the highest-priority item involved, but far from the only one: The established health savings accounts, plus home ownership incentives and even tax reform, would all be "ownership society" components, according to Bush officials.
Yet it's possible to exaggerate the extent to which the administration's proposed legislative changes would actually go toward remaking American society. Individuals would probably be limited in their choice of investment vehicles for any private Social Security accounts, for instance. Traditional Social Security would still exist, and still offer a guaranteed benefit - albeit a smaller one than beneficiaries might otherwise expect.
"No one is proposing that there not be some kind of safety net," says Mr. Zinsmeister, who is also editor of the AEI magazine The American Enterprise.
But breaking the current system, in which Social Security beneficiaries all reap the same reward for the same investment, would constitute a profound change in the nature of the system, say some experts.
"Since 1935 there has been an understanding that in return for a deduction from one's wages, there would be compensation in the form of old-age insurance. This would undermine that contract significantly," says William Leuchtenburg, professor emeritus of history at the University of North Carolina and one of the most prominent chroniclers of the New Deal era.
The paradox is that the New Deal in general, and Social Security in particular, were originally designed with Americans' famous attraction to personal liberty in mind. …