The Non-Debate on Social Security
Terry H. Schwadron
Oct. 25, 2024
The debate — or non-debate, more literally — over financing Social Security shows everything that is wrong about our politics.
We can’t agree on the problem, so clearly, there can be no agreement on a solution. We have what continues to be a sizeable problem and we don’t discuss it. Maybe we can’t even focus on issues like Social Security insolvency while we’re hearing about the potential end of democracy as we have known it.
Indeed, the new report out this week from the nonpartisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget clearly states that claims from both Donald Trump and Kamala Harris that they would “protect” Social Security funds are off-base.
In particular, the CRFB report says, “We find (former) President Trump’s campaign proposals would dramatically worsen Social Security’s finances.” The report lays out the various numbers and options ahead, but, naturally, does not deal with the politics of any solution other than to examine what the two candidates have put forth.
Now, it might have been more helpful if this report had emerged before the only televised debate this election, but what we really have here are messy “solutions” handed to voters that simply blur the target as much as possible.
After all, we have a population that is aging disproportionately, being shoved out of the workplace earlier, living longer on pharmaceuticals, all being supported by a shrinking number of workers, who are increasingly vocal about not wanting to pay for the care of aging generations, And, generally, as a society we reject expanding legal immigration to address work shortages. Of course, there is a problem in sight.
In short, the analysis is that Harris is correct in pitching a solution that would commit new tax money proposed for the wealthiest in our country towards social spending programs that include Social Security. Without such a commitment, the report outlines in detail, Social Security is headed for a cash shortfall by 2034.
Analyzing the Problem
But Trump’s proposals to eliminate taxation of Social Security benefits, end taxes on tips and overtime, impose tariffs, and expand deportations would all widen Social Security’s cash deficits, the report says flatly.
Specifically, the report says the Trump agenda would Increase Social Security’s ten-year cash shortfall by $2.3 trillion through 2035; advance insolvency by three years; lead to a 33 percent cut in benefits in 2035 and would require the equivalent of reducing current law benefits by about one-third or increasing revenue by about one-half to restore 75-year solvency.
Trump has made those proposals but has otherwise been silent about the other effects. According to Media Matters, so have pundits on Fox News who otherwise are eager to support Trump proposals to the televised audience, since the obvious conclusion is either more taxes or a cut to the benefits on which that Fox audience depends. Of course, the site also noted that evening news broadcasts on all the major networks did not give the report an airing either.
Indeed, Trump adviser and Project 2025 contributor Stephen Moore has argued such changes are good policy because “we want people to keep working. We want to keep incentivizing people once they turn 65, or 66, or 70.” The Media Matters view is that when Trump suggested in a March interview that he would consider cutting Social Security benefits, Fox ignored the remarks. They stress that Trump and his party are committed to defending Social Security, claiming suggestions otherwise are lies.
So a nonpartisan report with some analysis and numbers should raise some legitimate concern.
Instead, of course, we are spending our campaign time on debunking wild claims that range from whether Harris worked the cashier for a summer at McDonalds, how FEMA money has disappeared in migrant support payments and how Ukraine’s president somehow prompted an invasion by Russian armies.
The Missing ‘Debates’
This misleading “debate” on Social Security gets to the heart of what ails our politics. It’s the same on immigration, guns, abortion and more.
We are electing a president to run our government, to deal with our public good, to help forge solutions to real, existing social problems that range from financial and economic to our rights to national security.
But we don’t seem to want to talk about those issues in considering whom to hire for the job. We don’t seem to want to agree on what the problem concerns, and so offering results that come across as pandering to every affected group just feeds on itself.
Indeed, a skillful analysis of this election season would parse just how many promises have been made to as many groups as have raised their hands, each seeking a solution to one or more viewpoints that they consider vital for their vote support.
Instead, we accept blather about irrelevancies, we try to ignore personal insults and character attacks, we spend endless hours hearing repeated slogans and never seem to settle the outstanding, underlying social issues. We want a hero, not a manager. We buy the bluster rather than the power to analyze and steer towards compromise. It’s a guarantee for extreme, divergent views that depend almost entirely on marketing of image rather than expertise.
We want to vote on emotion, not any issues of substance. The idea that electing either Harris or Trump will affect supermarket prices, for example, reflects misguided faith; the marketplace controls prices, something neither wants to acknowledge.
At times, it appears the only good that can come from an election like this is that it will end, and perhaps we can get down to dealing with the problems at hand.
##