Social Security bashers may have toned down their rhetoric, but they are still pushing a fundamental lie.
Back in February, when Alan Simpson was reported to be President Obama’s choice to chair the new debt-reduction commission, Lori Montgomery of the Washington Post spoke to Simpson on the phone: “How did we get to a point in America,” Simpson asked, “where you get to a certain age in life, regardless of net worth or income, and you’re ‘entitled’? The word itself is killing us. Our job is to move this issue forward.”
Montgomery dutifully repeated Simpson’s dishonest claim that the nation faces soaring deficits “as retiring baby boomers tap into the entitlement programs, Social Security and Medicare.”
Lumping together Medicare, which presents a real problem for the national budget, and Social Security, which has no bearing on the budget at all, has long been a favorite ploy of those for whom Social Security’s cooperative, inter-generational structure is anathema. The fact that Social Security has also worked financially for 70 years, despite constant predictions of its bankruptcy, only inflames its enemies.
While the tone has been changing, the attacks have continued. Even Paul Krugman, who came in recent years to admit the difference between Medicare and Social Security, hasn’t quite gotten himself to say that Social Security has nothing to do with the Federal budget. On August 15, he wrote in the New York Times: “Legally, Social Security has its own, dedicated funding, via the payroll tax (“FICA” on your pay statement). But it’s also part of the broader federal budget. This dual accounting means that there are two ways Social Security could face financial problems. First, that dedicated funding could prove inadequate, forcing the program either to cut benefits or to turn to Congress for aid. Second, Social Security costs could prove unsupportable for the federal budget as a whole.”
Read that passage again, and I’m sure you will think, as I did, Huh? What can it mean to say that a program with its own legally dedicated funding is “also part of a broader budget”? Krugman knows perfectly well that “dual accounting” is a misnomer. Linking Social Security finances and the Federal budget requires fudged accounting, as I pointed out in this blog in June (“Bill Clinton’s Phantom Surpluses”). That foggy word “unsupportable” gives Krugman away.
Furthermore, Social Security has had its own dedicated funding for 70 years, and whenever that funding was close to inadequate, the contribution/benefit formulas were adjusted. Social Security has never turned to Congress for financial aid, although it is Congress that passes legislation, on the advice of Social Security actuaries, to make those contribution/benefit adjustments. In fact, the other side of Social Security having its own legally dedicated funding is that Congress is legally prohibited from shifting funds from general revenues to Social Security. And unless Alan Simpson and other Social Security bashers have their way, that legal separation will remain in force.
Now David Leonhardt has weighed in with a softer version of the old dishonesty, in his New York Times column this morning. While the focus of the column is on reducing Medicare costs, since they are “above all” the cause of budget problems, he can’t resist adding Social Security as the second most important source of future budget savings. “Tweaking” Social Security, he writes, “can help shrink the deficit,” even more than “cutting waste” or “ending the war in Afghanistan.”
The Times appends a table to the column, showing “Projected Federal Spending” on Medicare, Social Security, and other programs, without explaining how the government “spends” money on a program with its own dedicated funding.
In fact, the government does not “spend” money on Social Security, and neither tweaking nor slashing Social Security will have any effect at all on the Federal budget. But I can hear killer Simpson taking a gentler tack in the future: “We’re only tweaking Social Security.”
Most good-hearted people are pleading with Congress not to cut Social Security benefits, because doing so will hurt poor people. The stronger argument for demanding that the debt-reduction commission take Social Security off the table entirely is that it has nothing to do with the nation’s debt. Period.
Advertisement
Like this:
Be the first to like this post.
Social Security bashers may have toned down their rhetoric, but they are still pushing a fundamental lie.
Back in February, when Alan Simpson was reported to be President Obama’s choice to chair the new debt-reduction commission, Lori Montgomery of the Washington Post spoke to Simpson on the phone: “How did we get to a point in America,” Simpson asked, “where you get to a certain age in life, regardless of net worth or income, and you’re ‘entitled’? The word itself is killing us. Our job is to move this issue forward.”
Montgomery dutifully repeated Simpson’s dishonest claim that the nation faces soaring deficits “as retiring baby boomers tap into the entitlement programs, Social Security and Medicare.”
Lumping together Medicare, which presents a real problem for the national budget, and Social Security, which has no bearing on the budget at all, has long been a favorite ploy of those for whom Social Security’s cooperative, inter-generational structure is anathema. The fact that Social Security has also worked financially for 70 years, despite constant predictions of its bankruptcy, only inflames its enemies.
While the tone has been changing, the attacks have continued. Even Paul Krugman, who came in recent years to admit the difference between Medicare and Social Security, hasn’t quite gotten himself to say that Social Security has nothing to do with the Federal budget. On August 15, he wrote in the New York Times: “Legally, Social Security has its own, dedicated funding, via the payroll tax (“FICA” on your pay statement). But it’s also part of the broader federal budget. This dual accounting means that there are two ways Social Security could face financial problems. First, that dedicated funding could prove inadequate, forcing the program either to cut benefits or to turn to Congress for aid. Second, Social Security costs could prove unsupportable for the federal budget as a whole.”
Read that passage again, and I’m sure you will think, as I did, Huh? What can it mean to say that a program with its own legally dedicated funding is “also part of a broader budget”? Krugman knows perfectly well that “dual accounting” is a misnomer. Linking Social Security finances and the Federal budget requires fudged accounting, as I pointed out in this blog in June (“Bill Clinton’s Phantom Surpluses”). That foggy word “unsupportable” gives Krugman away.
Furthermore, Social Security has had its own dedicated funding for 70 years, and whenever that funding was close to inadequate, the contribution/benefit formulas were adjusted. Social Security has never turned to Congress for financial aid, although it is Congress that passes legislation, on the advice of Social Security actuaries, to make those contribution/benefit adjustments. In fact, the other side of Social Security having its own legally dedicated funding is that Congress is legally prohibited from shifting funds from general revenues to Social Security. And unless Alan Simpson and other Social Security bashers have their way, that legal separation will remain in force.
Now David Leonhardt has weighed in with a softer version of the old dishonesty, in his New York Times column this morning. While the focus of the column is on reducing Medicare costs, since they are “above all” the cause of budget problems, he can’t resist adding Social Security as the second most important source of future budget savings. “Tweaking” Social Security, he writes, “can help shrink the deficit,” even more than “cutting waste” or “ending the war in Afghanistan.”
The Times appends a table to the column, showing “Projected Federal Spending” on Medicare, Social Security, and other programs, without explaining how the government “spends” money on a program with its own dedicated funding.
In fact, the government does not “spend” money on Social Security, and neither tweaking nor slashing Social Security will have any effect at all on the Federal budget. But I can hear killer Simpson taking a gentler tack in the future: “We’re only tweaking Social Security.”
Most good-hearted people are pleading with Congress not to cut Social Security benefits, because doing so will hurt poor people. The stronger argument for demanding that the debt-reduction commission take Social Security off the table entirely is that it has nothing to do with the nation’s debt. Period.
Share this:
Like this: