“If a Republican-controlled Congress comes for your Social Security benefits in the next few years, don’t say they didn’t warn you.” So began a Nov. 4 Barron’s online article that was predicated on Republicans winning back the House and controlling the Senate in the aftermath of the Nov. 8 midterms.
The smaller-than-expected Republican tide achieved a 218-212 edge in the formerly Democrat-controlled House, as the Republicans gained eight seats and the Dems lost nine; meanwhile, in Georgia’s Dec. 6 runoff, incumbent Sen. Rafael Warnock beat former football star Herschel Walker to give the Dems an outright 51-49 majority and Warnock’s first full term. Vice President Kamala Harris, of course, will reman available to break the tie if Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) or Kyrsten Sinema (newly I-Ariz.) flake out on a vote.
Regarding Social Security’s longevity, the Dems—if only for their political survival—likely will not allow Social Security to be seriously cut, much less abolished, amid growing Republican rhetoric that “entitlements” like Social Security, as well as Medicare, must be placed “on the table” as Congress navigates the nation’s highly uncertain fiscal future.
As Barron’s noted:
Sen. Mike Lee of Utah brings to a round dozen the number of sitting GOP senators who have said, quite openly, that they want to put Social Security on the chopping block one way or another.
To name names, Republican Sens. Rick Scott (Fla.), Lindsey Graham (S.C.) and unscrupulous longtime corporate raider Mitt Romney (Utah) have voiced support, in various degrees, for tweaking or “rescuing” Social Security. For instance, Scott recommends creating a five-year sunset on all federal programs—which isn’t necessarily a bad idea in general; consider whether the continued existence of institutions like the usurious Federal Reserve System could somehow be included. Yet, Scott was mainly referring to Social Security and Medicare.
“If a law is worth keeping, Congress can pass it again,” Barron’s quoted Scott as saying.
Additionally, Sen. Kyrsten Sinema might side with Republicans in their pursuit of Social Security cuts, some observers speculate. Notably, Sinema recently voted to preserve key tax breaks that the US gives “to private-equity honchos, hedge-fund tycoons and venture capitalists,” Barron’s reported.
Meanwhile, H.R. 8005, the Social Security Expansion Act, was introduced back on June 9 by Rep. Peter DeFazio (D-Oregon). As of Dec. 12, the bill was awaiting House committee action. It has nine planks, one of which calls for an “across-the-board” benefit increase; others include: “Increasing the minimum benefit for lifetime low-earners ...” along with “Social Security Trust Fund established.”
Of course, with a weak 2022 birthrate of 12.012 births per 1,000 people (although that’s up 0.09% over 2021, the first birthrate increase in 15 years), the US lacks the robust workforce it needs to firmly support the Social Security System long term. Perhaps the Dems’ longtime support of virtually unlimited abortion should be relaxed a bit in this context. The elderly need the young in our current economic arrangement.
“In 1960, there were 5.1 workers per beneficiary; that ratio has to dropped to 2.8 [per beneficiary] today,” according to the Peter G. Peterson Foundation, which has long warned of Social Security’s eventual insolvency absent cuts, new revenue sources, etc.
However, under a populist perspective, which is sorely lacking in Congress, Social Security is not considered an entitlement but is deferred wages—since it and Medicare both were built through wage and salary set-asides. So, yes, such beneficiaries are indeed “entitled” to the funds withheld from their earnings, but not in the sense that they’re receiving a “bailout” or a “dole” as the wealthy set implies whenever Social Security is discussed.
Real and massive bailouts, alas, are reserved for banks and other corporate high-rollers who only moan about “entitlements” when the lower classes benefit. And perish the thought that the US could sunset the Federal Reserve and constitutionally fund Social Security, or some new and better program, via a debt-free, directly issued national currency, instead of foolishly leasing debt notes from the private Fed.
Mark Anderson is a veteran journalist who divides his time between Texas and Michigan. Email him at truthhound2@yahoo.com.
From The Progressive Populist, January 1-15, 2023
Blog | Current Issue | Back Issues | Essays | Links
About the Progressive Populist | How to Subscribe | How to Contact Us