Mitt Romney, the Republican former Massachusetts governor, felt no need to compete with Thompson on the issue.

Romney spokesman Eric Fehrnstrom bluntly acknowledged that "Governor Romney has not put out a specific plan with regard to Social Security, but he has stated his opposition to raising taxes." Fehrnstrom said Romney might consider cutting benefits to "high income individuals," but Romney hasn't said who fits that definition.

The leading Democratic candidate, Senator Hilla ry Clinton of New York, also saw no need to offer a plan. "Too many Republicans and others are constantly beating the drum on Social Security. We don't have a crisis in Social Security. We have a long-term solvency challenge we can meet if we're smart about it," she said last week in a meeting with editors and reporters at the Globe.

Thompson's proposal may have drawn little attention in last week's Republican debate on economic matters, but few issues have as direct an impact on most Americans.

Depending on which solution is adopted, benefits might be cut significantly or taxes might be increased on tens of millions of Americans. Few candidates have embraced other ideas, such as raising the retirement age for full benefits, now set at 67 years for those born in 1960 and later.

Social Security is facing a shortfall due to the rising number of retirees and the declining number of workers to pay benefits, with the system projected to start running a deficit in 2017. The deficit is projected to reach up to $8 billion in that year and $100 billion a year by 2022.

"The only way to fix Social Security is to reduce benefits or increase taxes," said David John, an analyst at the conservative Heritage Foundation who provided the deficit estimates. "At least Thompson has been honest enough to adopt one or the other of those approaches."

But many candidates, perhaps mindful of how President Bush failed in his much-publicized effort to deal with what is known as the "third rail of politics," are unwilling to risk the political backlash.

Bush's once-favorite idea, the use of some Social Security taxes to create private investment accounts, lost momentum after analysts said in 2005 that the accounts would not provide enough profit to offset benefit cuts. Democrats blasted the idea as the "privatization" of Social Security and it went nowhere in Congress.

Most Republicans are opposed to raising the level of income on which Social Security taxes are collected; currently, the taxes stop after an individual reaches an annual wage of $97,500. Most Democrats, meanwhile, have ruled out cutting benefits, while leaving the door open for tax hikes on wealthier Americans.

Thompson has the most specific plan among the leading Republican candidates. The former US senator from Tennessee would change how Social Security benefits are calculated. The current system is indexed during a person's working years according to the average growth in wages.

Thompson wants to replace that with a system indexed to the growth in inflation, which typically grows at a lower rate than wages. The result is that now-promised benefits could be cut for some workers by 10 percent in the short term and possibly much more in the longer term, analysts said. Workers under age 60 at the time the plan is adopted would be affected.

The Thompson campaign provided an example under which a $40,000-per-year worker born in 1975 would receive $1,562 per month under the current system, compared with $1,424 a month under Thompson's proposal. An $80,000-per-year worker's benefit would go from $2,469 to $2,085.

"For future retirees, instead of having nothing, which is what they're headed for under the current situation that's unsustainable, they would have protection," Thompson said in the Oct. 9 debate in Michigan.

Thompson's economic adviser, Lawrence Lindsey, said the Tennessean is considering proposals that would soften the impact of the cuts, but details have not been finalized.

The campaign hopes that the political risk Thompson is taking under the proposal will be outweighed by plaudits he may receive for it, such as an editorial in The Washington Post on Friday which saluted Thompson's "bravery in at least recognizing that any fix to the system will entail some pain."

Other leading Republican candidates have been much more vague. Rudy Giuliani, like Romney, has not put out a plan. Giuliani, former New York City mayor, told US News & World Report this summer, "We should put together five Democratic and five Republican senators and tell them, 'Give me two options, three options, and then we'll negotiate it out.' "

Giuliani explained why it wasn't worth proposing his own plan. "There are several solutions to Social Security that could get bipartisan support, but if either side comes out supporting it, it's going to get wiped out in all the political finger-pointing that is going on," he said.

Senator John McCain of Arizona, who said during his 2000 campaign that private investment accounts were the solution, said this week on CNBC-TV, "I really believe you have to have everything on the table." Then he seemed to immediately contradict himself by ruling out one solution. "But I'm opposed to tax increases."

Among the Democrats, Senator Joseph Biden of Delaware has advocated lifting of the $97,500 income cap, enabling all wages to be taxed. Senator Barack Obama of Illinois has come close to embracing the same position, saying at a recent debate that imposing Social Security taxes on income exceeding $97,500 "is probably going to be the best option."

John Edwards, former North Carolina senator, and Governor Bill Richardson of New Mexico have suggested a middle-ground approach, urging that no taxes be imposed on wages between $97,500 and $200,000, and then reimposing the tax on income above $200,000.

Clinton recently privately told a voter in Iowa that she might support that idea as well, according to the Associated Press. But, publicly, Clinton has adamantly refused to discuss specifics.

Pressed by NBC-TV's Tim Russert at a New Hampshire debate for details, she responded: "I'm not putting anything on the proverbial table until we move toward fiscal responsibility. I think it's a mistake to do that."

Marcella Bombardieri and Stephanie Vallejo of the Globe staff contributed.

© Copyright 2007 Globe Newspaper Company.

Comments (0)

Subscribe to this comment's feed