Republican U.S. House challenger Bill Flores on Monday denied that a comment he made in January endorsing private accounts for Social Security retirement benefits makes him pro-“privatization.”

In recent weeks on the campaign trail, Flores has taken pains to say he’s not for privatization.

But U.S. Rep. Chet Edwards, D-Waco, said Monday that Flores’ comment proves just the opposite.

Bill Flores (left) defended himself against accusations by U.S. Rep. Chet Edwards, D-Waco, that he favors privatizing Social Security.

Twice in the past week, Flores, a Bryan Republican, has told reporters he opposes privatization.

“Nothing we’ve said here says anything about privatizing Social Security, so we’re clear,” he said Wednesday, making the distinction between his stance and that of Dallas Rep. Jeb Hensarling, who supports allowing for private Social Security accounts and who had been campaigning with the Bryan Republican.

On Monday, before an event with U.S. Rep. Sam Graves, R-Mo., in Waco, Flores told a reporter, “I’ve never said anything about privatizing Social Security.”

But he recently has not spelled out his position on the option of private Social Security accounts, which were pushed for by the Bush administration in 2004.

Asked at a January GOP primary debate in Bryan about his “thoughts on whether people should be allowed to invest Social Security money in their own way,” Flores said “my answer to that is, ‘Yes.’”

Flores elaborated, comparing unfavorably the “very low returns” the Social Security trust fund earns compared to 401K plans, through which people can privately invest, tax-free, a portion of their paycheck for retirement. He also pointed out that Social Security is on track to become insolvent. The latest estimates said the trust fund will reach insolvency in the late 2030s.

“If a country like Chile can fix its social security system, there is no reason a country as great as the United States . . . can’t fix our Social Security system,” Flores said.

Monday, Edwards brought up the January remarks. A Flores campaign aide responded by saying the earlier comment wasn’t an endorsement of privatization.

“That’s allowing private accounts to be a part of it, but it’s not privatization,” said Flores’ campaign manager, Matt Mackowiak. “Privatization would be fundamentally changing the entire system and making the entire program private.”

Jim Riddlesperger, a political science professor at Texas Christian University, said Mackowiak was “misdefining the issue.”

“If you’re allowing an individual to make decisions about how their individual Social Security account is invested, that’s privatization,” he said.

Riddlesperger said the term “privatization” is commonly understood to stand for the Bush administration Social Security reform effort that was ultimately unsuccessful.

Almost as quickly as the term entered the political lexicon, Riddlesperger said, politicians on both sides of the spectrum learned from public polling that it carries negative connotations with many people. He said Republicans in particular have sought to avoid being labeled as supporters of privatization.

Riddlesperger compared the word to “amnesty,” which has come to mean providing illegal immigrants living in the U.S. a way to stay in the country and apply for citizenship. He said the term gets used as shorthand to attack proponents of such a policy, who are often Democrats.

The Edwards campaign also slammed Flores on Monday for telling a WFAA-TV host in Dallas he wasn’t opposed to raising the Social Security retirement age to 70.

Flores later retracted the comment, calling the WFAA host following the interview to say he’d had a headache during the show’s taping and to request that his Social Security comment not air.

“Bill Flores may have a headache, but seniors will have a migraine after hearing about Flores’ harmful positions on Social Security,” said Edwards’ campaign spokeswoman, Megan Jacobs.

“My opponent, Mr. Flores, said he wants to privatize Social Security and let people put their money in these private accounts,” Edwards told senior citizens at West Rest Haven on Monday. “I think that undermines the very foundation of Social Security.”

Were such a reform to pass, he said, it would “let people like me . . . take some of our Social Security taxes and put that in a separate account and risk it, like in the stock market.

“I’m glad I couldn’t do that a few years ago — I might have put my money in that great company down in Houston called Enron,” Edwards added, referring to the energy giant that went belly up in 2001.

In a statement, Mackowiak reiterated that Flores does not support either privatization or raising the retirement age.

He also attacked Edwards for allowing Social Security trust fund surpluses to be invested in Treasury bonds and U.S. securities.

mshapiro@wacotrib.com

757-5707