Failure of America’s politicians to deal with and solve the ongoing Social Security funding issue is an example of the lack of states- manship and leadership by the country’s national representatives.

SELF-SERVING HOT-AIR PROMISES
WITH FEW SPECIFICS ON HOW
TO MAKE THINGS BETTER

Social Security funding issue is an example
of America’s failure to correct a program
that is easily fixable and should be done

STATESMANSHIP AND LEADERSHIP
IN SHORT SUPPLY IN U.S. POLITICS
 
By David Maril
 
With local and national elections on the horizon, it’s time to gear up for a year of politicians pandering to voters with self-serving hot-air promises and few specifics on how to make things better.

With all the courage of barking dogs hiding behind trees, politicians on one side will attempt to demonize the other side. Frank, responsible discussions of the long-term issues figure to be in short supply.

One of many topics you won’t hear anyone address is funding of Social Security. That won’t happen until a decade down the road when the program is ready to go broke.

Instead of tweaking it now and making things easier for future generations, it’s easier to concentrate on pleasing wealthy lobbyists who have access to lavish campaign funding.

In the meantime, Social Security is referred to as part of our growing problem related to funding “entitlements.”

Many conservative politicians and commentators pronounce “entitlements” with disdain in their voices while wearing a sneer on their faces.

Right-wingers accuse their lefty counterparts of spending the country into debt, cultivating a nation of softies dependent on their entitlements.

The left accuses the right of being callous and intent on stripping entitlements away from the most vulnerable segments of the population who need them the most.

HEAVY-HANDED USE OF ‘ENTITLEMENTS’ TERM

I won’t debate how much or how little Social Security needs to be adjusted so the program avoids bankruptcy. But what irks me is the heavy-handed use of this “entitlements” term.

When I hear anyone talking about entitlements, I think of something people believe they have coming to them but probably don’t deserve.

Whenever someone refers to people acting as if they are entitled, you suspect the reference is about a complacent person who expects something he or she didn’t earn.

Social Security certainly deserves to be treated with more respect — it should never be lumped into a freeloader category.

People who receive Social Security money are getting paid back what they have contributed over a lifetime of work through funds being removed from their paychecks.

“People can no longer expect the government to take care of them with guaranteed checks from Social Security,” some social program critics maintain.

What they avoid mentioning is that this is a safe way, that the people themselves pay into, of insuring some guaranteed income to supplement their retirement budgets.

“Entitlements” is  a word critics of government programs love to use. They can be negative, talking in circles around a popular program, without mentioning it by name.

MILLIONS WILL BE UP IN ARMS

Politicians feel that if they go on record stating we can’t afford Social Security without making revisions, millions of citizens who rely on the monthly paycheck from government, or are counting on it when they retire, will be up in arms.

When someone talks about reducing entitlements, it doesn’t sound so bad. It seems more along the line of trimming government fat if you simply reduce entitlements.

Steps do need to be taken. People are working longer, living longer and changes need to be made.

Our elected officeholders on both sides need to display at least a minimal amount of courage and integrity by discussing the hard facts and coming up with a way to ease-in modifications gradually that won’t impact current retirees or people within a decade of retiring.

Politicians on both sides, left and right, have not approached this issue in a constructive way.

AARP, formerly known as the American Association of Retired Persons, airs misleading, fear-mongering commercials and ads whenever proposals are made to raise the age of eligibility for Social Security retirement benefits.

For example, AARP, a liberal organization that is supposed to look out for the rights of older people, comes out with misleading, fear- mongering commercials and ads every time proposals are made to raise the age for eligibility to draw Social Security.

The ads feature older, retired people pleading for support to avoid losing or having cuts made to their monthly Social Security benefits.

This is an irresponsible distortion of facts. None of the proposals would impact any of these people. They would only affect people decades away from retirement, who would have ample time to plan for the adjustments.

A number of tough questions need to be asked and discussed:

Should millionaires and billionaires be allowed to collect Social Security?

Does the age of eligibility need to be raised?

Does more need to be taken out of paychecks to support the program?

But we are never going to get anywhere tap-dancing around talking about “entitlements.”

Until a bipartisan discussion is frank enough to specifically refer to Social Security, little will be accomplished.

Unfortunately Social Security is only one of many issues that we will never hear the current slew of candidates running for office specifically address.
 
davidmaril@voiceofbaltimore.org
 
“Inside Pitch” is a weekly opinion column written for Voice of Baltimore by David Maril.
 
CHECK OUT LAST WEEK’S “INSIDE PITCH” COLUMN:  click here
…and read archived Dave Maril columns  by clicking here.