There Are Better Ways to Do It : Outcry over idea of blanket freeze on Social Security was understandable

The White House now says it’s “unlikely” that President Clinton will propose delaying for a year cost-of-living adjustments for Social Security recipients when he presents his economic program to Congress Feb. 17. “Impossible” would probably be more apt. The idea of limiting Social Security increases became a non-idea hours after it surfaced 10 days ago, consigned to oblivion by the outcry from those who say they speak for the nation’s 30 million orso Social Security beneficiaries.

Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan (D-N.Y.), chairman of the Finance Committee, was moved to marvel over the seeming political “death wish” that led an Administration official to float the notion in the first place. Others were moved to marvel that the new Clinton economic team failed to sound out Moynihan and other senior congressional leaders before going public with the proposal.

The idea of shared sacrifice, of everyone being asked to give up something to help achieve vitally needed deficit reduction, remains valid, even when it comes to Social Security. The idea of fairness is no less valid. Fairness, in this context, would mean limiting any new burdens on Social Security recipients to those who are better off.

Moynihan thinks a freeze on cost-of-living allowances, which might have denied average recipients less than $250 a year in new benefits, could have pushed another 500,000 people below the poverty line. But an alternative idea, that of raising taxable benefit levels on Social Security for those with higher incomes, would be far less inequitable and divisive and ought to be considered.

Now, for individuals with more than $25,000 in income or couples with more than $32,000, 50% of Social Security benefits are taxed. Taxing 85% of benefits instead could raise $6 billion a year. Here, as Moynihan agrees, is an idea that ought to be on the table. Would it be popular? Of course not. Would it be fair? Certainly it would be fairer than any across-the-board freeze on benefits.