EDITORIAL: Social security reform

Prime Minister Naoto Kan gave his policy speech Monday, one day after Sadakazu Tanigaki, president of the opposition Liberal Democratic Party, gave his at a party convention. Their speeches highlighted differences between the two major parties.

While Kan sought extensive policy debate with the opposition camp, Tanigaki was more confrontational, demanding that the Lower House be dissolved and a snap election called. The focal points of specific policy issues are the planned comprehensive reform of the social security and taxation systems as well as the review of the manifesto of the Democratic Party of Japan.

On the social security/tax reform, Kan invited other parties to start suprapartisan discussions while pointing out that the opposition LDP and New Komeito had proposed the same idea.

But Tanigaki retorted: "How convenient for the DPJ to get opposition parties on board when it's time to ask the public to make sacrifices. It was none other than the DPJ that irresponsibly made all sorts of unrealistic promises in the first place."

Tanigaki insisted on the DPJ's "withdrawal" of its party manifesto, including its child allowance initiative, as a condition for suprapartisan talks.

We, too, have reiterated that the DPJ must review its manifesto. But Tanigaki is being overly rigid in refusing any discussion unless the DPJ wipes the slate clean.

The purpose of the social security/tax reform is to reconfigure the revenue sources needed to maintain the pension system and other social security benefits for years to come. If the basic system changes every time there is a change of government, utter confusion is bound to ensue. To prevent that, all parties must seek common ground and work together to establish a system that can be passed on from one administration to another, no matter which party comes into power.

After all, was that not precisely why the LDP and New Komeito called for suprapartisan discussions in the first place? In fact, it was the Taro Aso Cabinet that amended the income tax law with an eye on passing, by fiscal 2011, legislation for tax reform, including the consumption tax.

Now that the DPJ is calling for joint deliberations, this should be the perfect time to get the ball rolling.

Of course, both the ruling and opposition camps should also deepen their discussions concerning DPJ policies mentioned in the party manifesto. We would like them to agree on revisions while they deliberate the fiscal 2011 budget bills.

Reviewing a party manifesto does not mean reneging on campaign promises made to the voting public.

Every campaign promise is based on the party's vision of an ideal society.

With the DPJ's child allowance initiative, for instance, its purpose must be to make it easier for people to start and raise a family. Given that the nation's social security system tended to be more generous to the elderly than to children, the DPJ was not wrong to have decided to invest more on children. This approach, in fact, helps to strengthen the generation that supports the elderly.

However, the party should be flexible in the implementation of this initiative, such as balancing it with the needed improvement of child-care facilities and services, and determining the extent and speed of implementation.

Ideally, an initiative such as this should not have any loose ends when it becomes a campaign promise. But in reality, better plans often emerge later, or funding problems prove tougher than expected.

It is vital that the DPJ first go over its philosophy and aim, and then redefine what it wants to put in its manifesto. Only then will the party be able to clearly see where it can compromise in its talks with opposition parties.

--The Asahi Shimbun, Jan. 25