OPINION:
A version of this story appeared in the On Background newsletter from The Washington Times. Click here to receive On Background delivered directly to your inbox each Friday.
No part of a functioning democracy is more vital than freedom of the press. Of course, that freedom comes with the great weight of responsibility to inform the public about the issues of the day.
In terms of Social Security, that arm in the checks and balances of our government is failing, and failing badly.
Case in point: The pundits and those who shape policy have largely praised the GOP for having at least two candidates willing to talk about the program’s long-term prospects. The Wall Street Journal editorial board went as far as to describe former New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie and former South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley as “truth tellers” in their performances at the recent GOP debate.
Are you kidding me? These people are neither truth-tellers nor bold visionaries. They are among the pallbearers of the status quo and the crisis that comes with it.
Based on the statements of the politicians on the stage vying for the Republican presidential nomination, it is unclear whether the candidates are unfamiliar with the mechanics and history of the program or whether they are simply trying to lower the public’s expectations about Washington’s need to fix a program on which most Americans depend.
For instance, Mr. Christie resorted to this infantile attack: “I don’t know if you’re watching, Warren, I don’t know if Warren Buffett is collecting Social Security, but if he is, shame on you. You shouldn’t be taking the money.”
I don’t know if you’re reading this column, Chris, but if you are, shame on you. Politicians shouldn’t be lying to the public.
Social Security was not established to be a safety net where politicians of the day bicker about who does and who does not need benefits. President Franklin Roosevelt specifically designed Social Security in a way that it would not be confused with a public dole like food stamps.
The part of the debate that should most disturb average voters is the shared commitment of Mr. Christie and Mrs. Haley to transform Social Security from its current form into a welfare program. This strategy is not terribly different from fixing a broken refrigerator by calling it a doorstop.
The GOP needs to understand that if the party wants to change Social Security into a welfare program, just be honest about it.
In response, the obvious and thus far unasked question for these candidates is: Why should Congress change Social Security into welfare? Why not just end it, and transfer the money to an existing welfare program that already has the infrastructure necessary to make sophisticated judgments about eligibility? That approach would be faster, cheaper, and infinitely more honest than reinventing the welfare wheel so that nostalgic voters will have something to call “Social Security.”
If there is any truth to be told, the reason for retaining the name Social Security is the slim hope that voters might not notice the difference.
Any truth starts with facts. It should be virtually self-evident that benefit reductions on checks going out 50 years from now will not materially ease the crisis that threatens today’s retirees. People who are 79 years old today expect to outlive the program’s ability to pay scheduled benefits.
Typically, politicians suggest that Congress has time to deal with this prospect. Again, honesty starts with facts. The crisis in Social Security is already here. Recent retirement research suggests that 44% of those 62 to 65 plan to take benefits early as a result of the fear of insolvency. It is a shocking vote of no confidence in Washington’s ability to solve problems.
In response to the visible erosion in the program’s stability, some members of the GOP want to increase the retirement age to 70 over the next decade. As a prospective benchmark of reasoning for that policy option, the Social Security Administration scores the possibility of indexing the retirement age to incorporate changes in longevity. If Congress applies this process for those 55 years old and younger, the retirement age would not reach 70 in this century.
If we are going to be honest, increasing the retirement age in Social Security to 70 or even 75 does not fix the program in any way. Such an exaggerated adjustment would simply explain to younger voters how they are affected as individuals by Washington’s systemic neglect over a period of 40 years.
Instead of challenging Republicans on the facts of the program, Democrats see the statements at the debate as an opportunity to sow fear. They say the GOP is going to put your benefits on the chopping block. The fact is, Social Security is already putting itself on the chopping block, and the GOP hasn’t given much thought to solutions or the consequences of that event.
It is time for the media to be the truth-tellers.
• Brenton Smith (think@heartland.org) is a policy adviser with the Heartland Institute.
Please read our comment policy before commenting.