You know the time-tested-and-proven addage — a gaffe is when a politician opens his mouth and what he or she really believes comes out. Sometimes it’s the revelation that the politician is barking mad and doesn’t have the foggiest notion what they are talking about.
We only have to look back a week for a perfect example of this phenomenon, when Mitch McConnell said this in an interview with Congressional Quarterly:
“Last week, the Social Security trustees issued a report saying Social Security and Medicare are not sustainable under their current structure.”
Back in the day, when we had a functioning press corps instead of a cocktail-weenie-wagging press corpse; back when we had real reporters doing actual journalism instead of the steno-pool full of faithful scribes who can be counted on to regurgitate right-wing talking points unchallenged, that sort of nonsense would have been a bit in the teeth of the reporter, who would have done his or her homework ahead of time, and McConnell would have been hammered mercilessly with the fact that the trustees said no such thing.
“Projected long-run program costs for both Medicare and Social Security are not sustainable under currently scheduled financing.”
There is a world of difference between what McConnell said the trustees reported and what the McConnell said they reported.
McConnell’s implication is that there is a hair-on-fire emergency and Social Security has to be fundamentally changed because it’s doomed to bankruptcy otherwise; when in fact what the trustees presented was an either/or — either revenues will have to be raised, or benefits will have to be cut decades down the road.
The essential Dean Baker had the best analogy I have seen on McConnell’s misrepresentation:
This would be like driving from Chicago to Detroit and determining that at some point you will need more gas to complete the trip. That would mean stopping at a gas station and refilling your tank. By contrast, McConnell’s comment implies that the car is about to breakdown and will not make the trip.
Congressional Quarterly failed their readers when they didn’t follow up and press the Senator to clarify whether
A.) he didn’t understand what the trustees actually said or
B.) was being deliberately dishonest in pursuit of political gain.
There is no option C.
The reality is there is no Social Security crisis, no matter how loudly the greed-mongers and deficit scolds insist there is.
They can wail and gnash their teeth and rend the cloth from their breast all day long and into the night. That still won’t change the fact that Social Security is not only not responsible for our deficit woes, it is independent of the deficit and it is solvent for decades. Period. Full stop.
The trustees report that McConnell misrepresented actually presents the same findings as the CBO report in that last link. Both report that the Social Security trustfund, without changing a thing, will be able to make full payouts through 2030-something — it should also be noted that the full payout projections have been pushed downward not by flaws in the system, but by the economic downturn of the last couple of years. Both note that those numbers should start ticking back up as the economy recovers, and if that isn’t the case, we have a lot bigger problems than Social Security heading our way.
In reality, any projected shortfalls in future Social Security benefits could be easily remedied with either of a couple of easy fixes would not only fill that hole, it would put the program on a sound footing indefinitely. The first option would be to raise the cap. Currently, a person making more than $106,800 pays no Social Security tax on any monies earned over that amount. Removing the cap and taxing all monies equally would put the program on solid footing indefinitely. So would a very modest increase — 1% or less — in the amount of payroll tax withheld from the wages of those of us who earn less than $106,800.
I don’t know about you, but I would be willing to give up three designer coffees a pay-period now to assure that Social Security will be there when I reach retirement age.
Elected leaders who embrace the “fundamental change is necessary” mantra are either stupid, or lying. In neither instance should they be making decisions that affect millions of Americans. And that goes double for those who parrot the BS knowing full well it’s just that…BS.
I’m looking at you, CQ.
*****
This post is part of a series I am writing as a blogging fellow for the Strengthen Social Security Campaign, a coalition of more than 270 national and state organizations dedicated to preserving and strengthening Social Security.
…”both.”
And “Turtle Boy” is damned good at it. Notice how he ignores the earnings cap on funding Medicare & Social Security, which would FIX THE SOLVENCY PROBLEM. You could sit him a table with ten people hammering him with the truth and he would stick to his talking points without breaking a sweat
He’s just that shady.
Ahhh, our two-party political system! While I’m certainly no expert on the fixes for Social Security, there’s a valid argument to be made that there’s urgency to fix the fundamental flaws in the funding for it. Politicians on both sides of the aisle have dodged tackling the issue for decades, yet insist the “other guys” are the ones guilty of blocking reform measures. Eliminating the cap on Social Security might indeed provide a temporary stopgap, but the well is going dry. Aging baby boomers, who funded SS for decades, are beginning to reclaim their investments. The dropoff in the number of working-age individuals in the country is steep, and new solutions need to be thoughtfully debated.
The incresingly vitriolic tone of political rhetoric, however, has me wondering if our elected representatives can ever actually sit down to a civil discussion of this issue, or any other substantive one for that matter. Stoked by television and radio talking heads, blogs (including this one), and exacerbated by many Americans’ addiction to an unhealthy diet of sensationalist journalism, I fear our political debate has taken on the circus atmosphere of a Jerry Springer slugfest. Less important than progress on the issues, America tunes in to see “who wins” in any coverage of poo-litical news. Like a boxing judge’s scorecard, the winner depends on who’s doing the judging. It seems no thought is given to AMERICA coming out the winner.
Pundits and politicians alike throw out sound bites lambasting the opposition’s proponents and positions as “stupid” “blatant lies,” and “un-American.” While I don’t always agree with one side or the other, I am able to tolerate a certain amount of bickering as healthy, and recall Madison’s assertion regarding factions; “Enlightened statesmen will not always be at the helm.” My patience is wearing thin though. Let’s stop the name-calling and get to work.
I’m obliged to note, as a final remark, “The Daily Show” host John Stewart who opined on the lack of civility in our political debate. He offered a simple solution to solve the partisan bickering in Washington (and throughout the nation) in one pithy suggestion to adjust our national mindset–
“I might not agree with what you say, but I’m also pretty sure you’re not Hitler.”