The Battle for Social Security: From FDR's Vision To Bush's Gamble

by Nancy J. Altman

This book illuminates the politics and policy of the current struggle over Social Security in light of the program's compelling history and ingenious structure. After a brief introduction describing the dramatic response of the Social Security Administration to the 9/11 terrorist attack, the book recounts Social Securityâ??s lively history. Although President Bush has tried to convince Americans that Social Security is designed for the last century and unworkable for an aging population, readers will see that the President's assault is just another battle in a longstanding ideological war. Prescott Bush, the current Presidentâ??s grandfather, remarked of FDR, "The only man I truly hated lies buried in Hyde Park." The book traces the continuous thread leading from Prescott Bush and his contemporaries to George W. Bush and others who want to undo Social Security. The book concludes with policy recommendations which eliminate Social Security's deficit in a manner consistent with the program's philosophy and structure.

Genres: History, Politics, Nonfiction

368 pages, Hardcover

First published November 4, 2005

Reviews

[Ryan Jankowski · Rating 4 out of 5]

This was a spectacular, though very left-leaning, account of the conception and history of Social Security in the US. I wasn't a fan of the "Lenninist Strategist" being deployed as a label for essentially any party that disagrees with her "progressive" views. There were plenty of allusions to Friedman, but she doesn't even begin to deal with his arguments. That's fine. This book is better as a historical account more than a defense of the State being our Lord and Savior.
Altman has a long personal history with Social Security, inherited it seems from her parents, who were notable contributions to its history and influential on the author. The intimate details of meetings and events suggest the author had first-person experience with them. I have no reason to question her accounts - but her end-notes are absolutely terrible. I've never seen a historian write this way. There are no corresponding referents in the book. You are expected to go to the end notes and find the corresponding page (in an effort to see if any of the points were supported?).
Chapter 16 offers the author's solution to the deficit crisis and it isn't going to be shocking that her solution, mostly, is to simply raise taxes. The rich should pay more and more, because, you know, that's "fair" (as defined by how much of your money I want). The only sensible contribution from that chapter was adding equities to the SS trust (especially now as interest rates will go up and bond returns tank). No one ever wants to advocate for a responsible budget it seems (or any form of personal responsibility - which is why we need the State to save us I guess).

[Redynstruc · Rating 4 out of 5]

Good history

This is a good summation of the first 75 years of Social Security. A little more discussion on how it is a trust fund separate from the rest of the budget would be helpful.

[Jud Barry · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book was written in 2005, shortly after George W. Bush's failed, 2nd-term push to end Social Security as a government-run retirement insurance program for all Americans and replace it with a combination of privatized retirement savings accounts and means-tested welfare for less prosperous seniors.

In other words, before the huge financial meltdown of 2008. How much stronger the book's brief for Social Security would have been after that disaster for private markets!

As it is, the case is a strong one. What makes it so strong is Altman's intimate knowledge of the history and actuarial methodology of the program, which comes in part from her personal acquaintance with the individuals who designed the program in the beginning (it was first approved in 1935) and who saw it through the subsequent decades as it solidified and matured into "the third rail of American politics," which no politician dares touch. Bush II--with political capital gained as a president leading a global war against terrorism--did dare, but in doing so he inadvertently gave the program an opportunity to show how sound and well-designed it is.

Although much of the book details the political struggles and compromises required over the years to hammer Social Security into its present shape, Altman sings the praises of such popularly unsung bureaucrats as Robert Ball, Wilbur Cohen, and Robert Myers, New Dealers whose actuarial and administrative skill enabled Social Security to accomplish its task from the very outset.

Altman was herself personally involved--as an assistant to Alan Greenspan--in a Reagan-era tweak of Social Security performed by a bipartisan commission that included Republican Bob Dole and Democrat Pat Moynihan. "The initial reaction to the composition of the commission was that its membership included individuals who were too far apart to reach consensus." Yet reach consensus they did, and its modest changes (among them a raising of retirement age by one year) were ushered through both houses of Congress faster than any other Social Security amendments up to that point. How foreign bipartisanship seems in these days of scorched-earth anti-Obama-ism! Maybe someone will write a hiphop musical of Altman's experience so as to popularize a bygone value.

It is interesting to read that national health insurance had been at the top of the federal agenda for a longer time (at least since 1917) than retirement insurance; even after Social Security was approved, it was widely believed that the greater need was for national health insurance. At the outset the AMA favored such an approach, but changed its tune and doomed any attempts to make health care rational, affordable, and fair simply by describing it as "socialist." The very success of Social Security is one very strong argument that a public solution, if well-designed and well-administered, would produce a more effective outcome to asymmetric health care needs than do the random workings of a so-called "market."

[Wren · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book was very good in its level of detail about the development of Social Security and the subsequent reforms. I can't praise this book for being impartial. The subtitle alone makes its bias apparent. It was published in 2005 during the time when G.W. Bush was pushing to transform SS from a defined benefits program (fixing the amount of money granted to a beneficiary each month) to defined contribution accounts (fixing the amount a person saves for retirement in a personal accounts, best illustrated by 401k plans). With personal accounts, the money granted per month would depend on the perfomance of stocks and bonds.

It's clear that Altman opposes Bush's plan. Even if she leans left throughout the books, she does present a great deal of specifics about the politicians, the lobbyists, the bills, and the presidents who created this program and those who shaped it in the decades that followed. The back flap tells us that Altman taught a course on Social Security at Harvard's Kennedy school of government, which gave her ample opportunity to research the facts of the program and an opportunity to debate these details with her students. Because of this background, I grant her expert status, even if she presents these details within an ideological framework. (To be honest, it's nearly impossible for anyone to present a history of a government program without placing it within an ideological framework.)

I chose this book because I wanted more of a historical context for the Social Security program, which I have been studying as part of my master's in gerontology (aka Aging Studies). I didn't realize how much detail I would gain about how various committees worked. Wow! The political process is chock full of conflict, backroom deals, compromise, and pandering to the masses. Like others who have already reviewed Altman's book, I can see why discussions today (2011) about potential Medicare reforms are similarly fraught with conflict.

I suppose that I knew that politics is complex and full of contention in the abstract, but this is the first time that I've seen the process documented in such detail. It's a miracle that anything ever comes out of Washington, DC. I am very impressed by those who possess the talent and the temperment to shape the political process. I'm just not that kind of animal, but our form of government requires it. Hug a polician or a lobbyist today.

[Rose · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book covers the design, arguments over and modifications made to Social Security for the last three-quarters of a century. For being primarily about legislation, legislators and the advisory committees who reported to them, it keeps up a good pace and makes for a pleasant read. I found most interesting the descriptions of the Roosevelt bashers and how they compare to the recent Obama haters. It's disheartening to discover how disingenuous the attacks on Social Security have become. We may very well lose one of the best things the US government ever did because the lobbyists who stand to profit from privatized accounts have a louder voice than the rest of the public.

[Karoli · Rating 5 out of 5]

If you want to understand why the health care debate went the way it did, you must return to the beginnings of Social Security and follow the debate forward to current times. This book is the authority on that particular subject.

[Harvey · Rating 3 out of 5]

Combines a very readable history of SS w/ prescriptions for keeping SS healthy moving forward.