August marks the fifth anniversary of the Hyde Park Declaration.
Adopted at FDR's palatial, Hudson River estate by 85 elected
moderate Democrats - including five current U.S. senators - the
manifesto set forth the New Democrats' "statement of principles and
... policy agenda for the 21st century."
The declaration addressed what President Bill Clinton called "the
big, long-term challenges the country faces in the new century."
Ambitious? Yes. And five years later, the problems and principles
articulated in the document seem as timely as ever.
Indeed, the Hyde Park discussion of Social Security reads like a
commentary on this year's reform efforts. What's most striking,
though, is how closely the New Democrat principles of 2000 jibe
with what Republicans propose today.
Consider the Hyde Parkers' governing principle vis-à-vis
Social Security: "We believe in shifting the focus of America's ...
social insurance programs from transferring wealth to creating
wealth." President Bush couldn't have said it better. That's
exactly why he and his allies in Congress have proposed adding
personal retirement accounts to the Social Security system: so
workers can get a better return on their retirement tax
dollars.
Bush and the Hyde Parkers also accept the need to rein in
burgeoning costs. "Moreover," wrote the New Democrats, "the costs
of the big entitlements for the elderly - Social Security and
Medicare - are growing at rates that will eventually bankrupt them
and that could leave little to pay for everything else government
does. We can't just spend our way out of the problem; we must find
a way to contain future costs."
The president and other reformers have put in play a number of
cost-containment options, from slowing scheduled benefit increases
for wealthy retirees to gradually raising the retirement age. All
are in keeping with the New Democrats' vow to enact "structural
reforms" that will restrain the growth in costs and thereby "limit
their claim on the working families whose taxes support the
programs." This kind of reform is needed, they declared, to respond
to "conditions not envisioned" 70 years ago when FDR created the
system.
The Hyde Parkers list three Social Security reform goals for
2010:
"Honor our commitment to seniors by ensuring the future solvency of
Social Security.
"Make structural reforms ... that slow ... cost growth, modernize
benefits ... and give beneficiaries more choice and control over
their retirement ... security.
"Create Retirement Savings Accounts to enable low-income Americans
to save for their own retirement."
Newsflash: This agenda is wholly compatible with what many
congressional Republicans are pushing today. Consider the most
recent proposal out of the GOP: Sen. Jim DeMint's "GROW" Act. It
would enable workers to deposit their share of surplus Social
Security taxes into personal retirement accounts, creating real
assets that workers could use for their retirement or pass on to
their heirs.
The DeMint approach also would block Congress from spending every
spare penny in the Social Security trust fund on any and all
non-retirement "investments" that suit their fancy. No more would
worker's excess retirement taxes be squandered on everything from
mohair subsidies to the Tongass Coast Aquarium in Ketchikan,
Alaska. Instead, they would flow into millions of personal Social
Security "lock boxes" that workers would own.
Like the initiatives being offered by President Bush, the DeMint
proposal comports with Hyde Park principles and policies. So where
are the New Democrats in the debate?
Awkwardly, they are marching in lock step with leading liberals in
opposing Hyde Park-style reforms.
Five months ago, including all five Hyde Park signatories still
serving in the Senate - Indiana's Evan Bayh, Massachusetts' John
Kerry, Louisiana's Mary Landrieu, Connecticut's Joseph Lieberman
and Arkansas' Blanche Lincoln - signed another document. Along with
37 other Senate Democrats, they sent an uncompromising letter to
President Bush in which they vowed to oppose any reform plan that
creates personal retirement accounts funded with a portion of a
worker's Social Security taxes or includes structural reforms that
tinker with Social Security's guaranteed benefit.
Ironically, the Hyde Park Declaration anticipates the
obstructionism that the party's liberal leadership so openly
embraces today. "This is the wrong time in history for politics as
usual: for empty partisanship... and for perpetuating the issues
and ideologies of an ever-more-distant path," wrote Lieberman and
the other signatories. They further noted:
"As the squire of Hyde Park, Franklin D. Roosevelt, said, 'New
conditions impose new requirements on government and those who
conduct government.' That is why we best honor the true legacy of
FDR not by acting as guardians of the dead letter of past
progressive achievements, but by living up to the bold, innovative
spirit that made those achievements possible."
Five years later, one can only wonder: Hyde Park Democrats, where
are you?
First appeared on National Review Online. Michael G. Franc is vice president of government relations for the Heritage Foundation.