Pretending Social Security Is Our Biggest Problem
Every few years, a consensus opinion seems to form among Washington politicians that the finances of Social Security are so dire that we absolutely must take dramatic steps to reform it. While Social Security's long-term financing shortfall is very real, it doesn't even rank in the top-20 of America's most imminent problems. And the most obvious remedy--dramatically raising or lifting entirely the salary cap applied to the payroll tax--is no longer even being discussed by anybody. The only credible solutions, we're told, involve either redirecting the Social Security trust fund dollars to the oversight of Goldman Sachs or AIG in the form of "private accounts", or draconian cuts in payments and a raising of the retirement age. Whatever the viability of these arguments, the urgency just isn't there, and the pretense by politicians trying to convince us that it is generally represents an effort to both distract us from more serious and imminent threats and to convince us that all diagnosed "austerity" has to come almost entirely at the expense of those in the lower tax brackets.
All the focus on Social Security is a pathetic way of diverting attention from the fact that the most imminent entitlement threat is the bankruptcy of Medicare in just a few years, as opposed to the 30-some odd years before Social Security even begins to face math issues. The answers to fixing Medicare are much more elusive than those of Social Security, so it behooves politicians to avoid talking about it. That luxury is quickly slipping away from us though as soaring elder care costs are spiraling out of control and the bipartisan consensus that the very rationing of end-of-life costs that are absolutely necessary to avoid Medicare's bankruptcy are completely out of the question and tantamount to "death panels". Telling 85-year-old grandma no once in a while on $3,000-a-month prescriptions that are expected to keep her alive four more months absolutely can't be done, but telling her 65-year-old son he has to keep working for five more years before he can collect a reduced Social Security check is perfectly viable. It speaks to seriously messed-up priorities and a disconnect with what's going on in the real world.
Medicare's very real problems are fast approaching crisis mode because we're accepting an unsustainable premise of unlimited health care services for the demographic of Americans that run up the most health care bills and are the fastest-growing population cohort. Those declaring rations for end-of-life costs as tantamount to putting grandma to death could could not be more detached from reality, and they certainly threaten America's financial solvency much sooner than Social Security ever will. But we refuse to even have the conversation. When it's brought it, some faction shouts down the implications to the current elderly, pretending that Medicare by itself gives a permanent entitlement to a bottomless pit of taxpayer-financed medical care. The time wasted on convincing Americans to fear Social Security's bankruptcy should be spent on convincing us of the need to let go of granny when she becomes terminally ill as pretending she can live forever will bankrupt the country within the next 10 years.
And by contrast, let's take a look at a few of the implications of extending the Social Security eligibility age that the geniuses in Washington probably haven't thought through. With increased frequency, companies are letting go older employees because they don't want to bankroll their higher-risk health insurance costs. In other words, it's becoming increasingly difficult for people in their 50s and early 60s to stay on their employer's payroll now, so how much bigger will the problem be when the same employees are expected to stay on the job until age 69?
And just because life expectancy is increasing doesn't mean the human body's ability to do repetitive motions without becoming impaired will increase accordingly. Policymakers sitting on their asses all day pontificating on how store clerks and factory workers need to work an extra five years don't seem to have considered that whatever savings accrued through delayed access to Social Security checks will likely be offset and then some by higher health care costs accrued by working-class Americans continuing to work beyond their body's expiration date. A workforce full of cripples isn't one that saves society money, rendering any discussion of delaying the retirement age a nonstarter until the issue is addressed.
As it stands now, life expectancy isn't growing at all for the working-class Americans most dependent on Social Security, so the program will become that much more regressive if the only people who get to cash in on it are the office workers who live long enough to collect benefits. As Paul Krugman said, the argument effectively amounts to forcing janitors to work longer because corporate lawyers are living to older ages.
The leadership we need is from the President here, but I can't imagine he'll disavow the prescriptions of his own debt commission. The agenda will be set by Congress, and gutting Social Security has been a cause celebre for the Republican majority for years, even before the takeover of even further-right Tea Party radicals. Obama can't possibly think the assault they plan for Social Security is good politics even if he does think it's good policy, which he may given the cacophany of pointy heads in Washington insisting that it is. There are certain issues where taking an unpopular position is the right thing to do. Pretending that cutting Social Security is the nation's top priority is not one of them, and if Obama thinks it is, he'll find his approval ratings sinking even further underwater no matter what his advisers are telling him.
All the focus on Social Security is a pathetic way of diverting attention from the fact that the most imminent entitlement threat is the bankruptcy of Medicare in just a few years, as opposed to the 30-some odd years before Social Security even begins to face math issues. The answers to fixing Medicare are much more elusive than those of Social Security, so it behooves politicians to avoid talking about it. That luxury is quickly slipping away from us though as soaring elder care costs are spiraling out of control and the bipartisan consensus that the very rationing of end-of-life costs that are absolutely necessary to avoid Medicare's bankruptcy are completely out of the question and tantamount to "death panels". Telling 85-year-old grandma no once in a while on $3,000-a-month prescriptions that are expected to keep her alive four more months absolutely can't be done, but telling her 65-year-old son he has to keep working for five more years before he can collect a reduced Social Security check is perfectly viable. It speaks to seriously messed-up priorities and a disconnect with what's going on in the real world.
Medicare's very real problems are fast approaching crisis mode because we're accepting an unsustainable premise of unlimited health care services for the demographic of Americans that run up the most health care bills and are the fastest-growing population cohort. Those declaring rations for end-of-life costs as tantamount to putting grandma to death could could not be more detached from reality, and they certainly threaten America's financial solvency much sooner than Social Security ever will. But we refuse to even have the conversation. When it's brought it, some faction shouts down the implications to the current elderly, pretending that Medicare by itself gives a permanent entitlement to a bottomless pit of taxpayer-financed medical care. The time wasted on convincing Americans to fear Social Security's bankruptcy should be spent on convincing us of the need to let go of granny when she becomes terminally ill as pretending she can live forever will bankrupt the country within the next 10 years.
And by contrast, let's take a look at a few of the implications of extending the Social Security eligibility age that the geniuses in Washington probably haven't thought through. With increased frequency, companies are letting go older employees because they don't want to bankroll their higher-risk health insurance costs. In other words, it's becoming increasingly difficult for people in their 50s and early 60s to stay on their employer's payroll now, so how much bigger will the problem be when the same employees are expected to stay on the job until age 69?
And just because life expectancy is increasing doesn't mean the human body's ability to do repetitive motions without becoming impaired will increase accordingly. Policymakers sitting on their asses all day pontificating on how store clerks and factory workers need to work an extra five years don't seem to have considered that whatever savings accrued through delayed access to Social Security checks will likely be offset and then some by higher health care costs accrued by working-class Americans continuing to work beyond their body's expiration date. A workforce full of cripples isn't one that saves society money, rendering any discussion of delaying the retirement age a nonstarter until the issue is addressed.
As it stands now, life expectancy isn't growing at all for the working-class Americans most dependent on Social Security, so the program will become that much more regressive if the only people who get to cash in on it are the office workers who live long enough to collect benefits. As Paul Krugman said, the argument effectively amounts to forcing janitors to work longer because corporate lawyers are living to older ages.
The leadership we need is from the President here, but I can't imagine he'll disavow the prescriptions of his own debt commission. The agenda will be set by Congress, and gutting Social Security has been a cause celebre for the Republican majority for years, even before the takeover of even further-right Tea Party radicals. Obama can't possibly think the assault they plan for Social Security is good politics even if he does think it's good policy, which he may given the cacophany of pointy heads in Washington insisting that it is. There are certain issues where taking an unpopular position is the right thing to do. Pretending that cutting Social Security is the nation's top priority is not one of them, and if Obama thinks it is, he'll find his approval ratings sinking even further underwater no matter what his advisers are telling him.
posted by Mark at 5:42 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home