For a long time I have advocated that supporters of politicians should be the first ones to hold them accountable for their actions. Republicans don’t listen to Democrats and Democrats don’t listen to Republicans. If any listening takes place at all, it is when each speaks to his or her own party. But more is at stake than that. I believe holding the leaders we voted for accountable is a matter of integrity. There is nothing honest about criticizing the other party’s leaders, but refusing to do the same to your own. That’s a double standard, pure and simple.
That said, I find Obama’s proposal to cut Social Security benefits unconscionable. He wants to begin calculating Social Security increases based on what is called the “chained CPI” (consumer price index) that differs from the way the Bureau of Labor Statistics now does it. How the CPI is currently calculated and how Obama’s proposal would affect that process is complicated, but its effect is unambiguous. Seniors will see smaller Social Security checks. What is more, the impact of the cuts will get worse over time. Let’s put this in context. More than half of all seniors today depend on Social Security for at least half of their income, and 36% depend on it entirely. So this proposal is not a small thing, even though its supporters argue it is.
But here is why I find what Obama is proposing so morally objectionable. It is absolutely unnecessary. This is all about politics, not policy. How do I know? Because there is another way to shore up SS without the chained CPI. The current maximum annual income on which people pay SS is $113,700. Whatever you make over that amount is exempt. Raising that maximum amount in increments over ten years to $125,000 would make SS completely solvent for the next 75 years without cutting benefits. If Obama were serious about policy he would help SS this way.
But there is something else that makes it clear that Obama is playing politics. Social Security does not increase or decrease the annual deficit, despite the fact that news reporters and politicians and others continue to say it does. Social Security is funded solely by its own tax, and by law cannot draw on general revenue funds. Therefore, ask anyone who says it affects the deficit to explain how it does. The only thing they will be able to tell you honestly is that it has an impact because the government has taken money from the SS Trust Fund and has to pay it back.
This is a disingenuous argument because the government has no choice but to pay back SS. It is required by law to do so. The only way it wouldn’t have to is if Congress passed a law saying it wouldn’t. That is not going to happen. So the “chained CPI” is the only way those who want to cut SS can do it. By cutting benefits the amount of money the government has to pay back will get smaller over time. So this is not about how to save Social Security. It’s about cutting benefits. Don’t let anyone ever tell you anything different.
For President Obama to be the first Democratic president to propose cutting SS benefits is, I believe, a breach of trust for all those seniors who voted for him. It has long been the position of the Republican Party to turn Social Security into a welfare program by making it need based through vouchers, or to privatize it so as to drain away its resources. So Democrats have opposed all the changes Republicans have wanted to make in it…until now.
Here is a truth no supporter of President Obama’s can deny. This president has revived the hopes of those who want to begin the long journey to reducing Social Security to a public assistance program with minimal funding. In short, Obama has chosen to play politics with the lives of seniors. I find that no less reprehensible than what the Republicans are doing by refusing to discuss revenue increase. It is what it is, and no amount of political loyalty can change it.
