Social Security
At a bar down in Dallas, and old man chimed in,
And I thought he was out of his head.
Just being a young man, I just laughed it off,
When I heard what that old man had said.
He said I’ll never again turn the young ladies’ heads,
Or go running off into the wind.
I’m three quarters home, from the start to the end,
And I wish I was eighteen again.
I wish I was eighteen again, and going where I’ve never been.
But old folks, and old oaks, standing tall just pretend.
I wish I was eighteen again.
I Wish I Was Eighteen Again - George Burns (1980)
…..
A couple of weeks ago, Ben Shapiro “broke the internet” (his words) with a provocative review of Social Security. Basically, he said it was going bankrupt (true) and that we needed to get rid of it. I’m not so sure about that last part. Let’s dig into the issue.
First, follow me on X @lookthruchaos and listen to the Look Through The Chaos Podcast on your favorite podcast platform.
Now, let’s look at a little history of Social Security. It was started as part of FDR’s New Deal in 1935. The retirement age was set at 65. In 1935, the average American lived only to age 60. So, the average person had been dead for five years before they could collect social security. Which means they collected nothing.
The math worked.
Today, the average American lives to be 79. But the retirement age is now 67, and you can request to receive reduced social security payments as early as 62. So, instead of being dead for five years, the average American now collects Social Security for 12 years. Living longer is obviously not a bad thing, but it makes the math difficult. There have been numerous changes over the decades on who pays into Social Security and how much and what is taxable and so forth. However, under the system today, not enough is paid in to cover the obligations going out. Because of this, as I discussed in an earlier blog this year, the Social Security Trust fund is projected to run out of money (be bankrupt) in 2034. That is 10 years from now. At that time, existing law requires that benefits be cut to match the amount coming in since there is no money in the fund to pay more than that. Estimates now are that benefits would need to be reduced by 25% then, and probably more cuts in future years.
That will not sit well with many retirees, particularly those who largely live off those payments.
Why are we in this predicament? Demographics has a lot to do with it. More retirees living longer, and fewer babies being born to work and pay into the system. Clearly, many Congresses and Presidents have been dilatory not wanting either to cut benefits, increase the retirement age, or raise taxes to make it work. All of those are unpopular.
Several bold attempts at trying to extend the financial viability of the Social Security Trust Fund (SSTF) have been made in this century. George W. Bush proposed allowing workers to put their money in “optional personal accounts” where they could earn a better return on their retirement income and control their own destiny. This would have meant that you were not guaranteed any particular amount of payment. That would be determined by how your invested money did over your lifetime. You might make more or less than the current system. This was deemed “privatizing social security” by the regime media and the Democrats and demonized to such an extent that many Republicans ran away from the proposal and it died.
When I was in Congress, some of we more conservative Republicans proposed not paying Social Security to people over a certain income. You would think that Democrats would embrace that. They did not. They believed that that would turn Social Security into a welfare program since some would pay in and get nothing out and others would get more than they paid. They were right about that. They felt that making it a welfare program would make it ripe for future cuts like happened with welfare reform in the 1990s. So, with no bipartisan support, that idea died as well.
That is the crux of the matter. To touch the proverbial “third rail” of politics, you need genuine bipartisan support to prevent the demonization of whichever side is trying to fix the problem. The Democrats have made no legitimate proposals to fix the problem in decades. In Biden’s recently released budget, he says a lot about “fixing” Medicare, but only vaguely discusses taxing “millionaires” more on Social Security. That is just a stalking horse because you can never get enough money from the few people who earn over a million dollars a year to fix the problem. The Democrats never propose a solution because they would rather let Republicans touch the “third rail” and they will then attack and score political points against the team that is actually trying to solve the train wreck that is ahead of us. Many Democrats are using “save Social Security” as their main talking point this election cycle, in addition to “reproductive rights,” because they literally have nothing else to run on. To say the Dems are irresponsible here is to understate their infamy.
This is particularly so because Mr. Trump has been no better on the issue. In 2017, then Speaker Paul Ryan wanted Social Security (and Medicare) reform to be a signature piece of the tax bill that year. President Trump would have none of it. Of course, it is not surprising that the regime press and Democrats attack him for doing something he clearly does not want to do.
Nikki Haley and Mike Pence, to their credit, were the two presidential candidates this cycle that proposed doing something to fix the problem. Obviously, they lost.
So, back to Ben Shapiro’s proposal. I do not agree with it. People have to save for retirement, but many won’t unless they are forced. If we don’t force a retirement plan (that’s what Social Security is) and they must stop working because of age or infirmity, our society is not going to let them starve on the street. We will take care of them. If we are going to do that anyway, let’s at least use their own money they earned while working.
Shapiro suggests that retirement is an antiquated concept, and he plans to work until the day he dies. Frankly, so do I. But many don’t and many can’t. If your job involves physical labor, you can’t do it past a certain age. Yes, you can go become a Walmart greeter for a time perhaps. But maybe that’s not everyone’s view of their “golden years.”
Something will have to be done to fix it. Getting rid of it, even if it were politically possible, will not work. I still like the personal accounts idea. But, the most politically palatable thing to do is to nibble at every aspect of it to extend the life of the program. Raise the retirement age a little. Raise the taxes a little. Cut the benefits a little. Tax upper income people a little more on their benefits and put that tax back in the program.
To do that, you need some courage on both sides of the aisle and an agreement to not use the issue against one another. It is inconceivable to me that Democrats would agree to do anything like that now. Why give up and issue they can use to pummel Republicans and maybe win elections so they can enshrine transgender rights like men in women’s bathrooms?
No, I’m afraid a fix will have to wait, as many things in Washington do, until there is a deadline. As 2034 approaches, the specter of those massive cuts in benefits may encourage action.
George Burns was 84 when I first heard him sing the song at the top of this missive. I was 25. I thought it was a sad but powerful lament. In many ways, I do wish I was 18 again. But in some ways, I pity that 18-year-old for the debt and deficits and unsustainable programs with which we 68 year olds have burdened them.
I will be taking next week (Holy Week) off from this writing and will be back with you after Easter. However, the Look Through The Chaos podcast will continue next week as normal. So, you can catch up with me there.
Until then, Happy Easter!
I Remain Respectfully,
Congressman John Campbell
Drive Fast & Live Free