They Could Be Desperate Part II: Scaring the Elderly

With the election a week away, we’re in the last round of the 2010 fight for control of Congress. The Democrats are on the ropes. As of today: RealClearPolitics predicts they will lose at least 45 seats in the House and between 3 and 11 in the Senate. So the future minority party is turning to acts of desperation. Their current favorite, suitable for Halloween: frightening seniors with the prospect of reduced Social Security benefits.

They started on August 13, when the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee presented a “Social Security Scorecard”. The accompanying press release explained the scorecard’s purpose: to “track the Republican Senate candidates’ extremist positions on privatizing Social Security. A full thirteen Republican Senate candidates want to dismantle Social Security through privatization or complete elimination, putting the life savings of hardworking senior citizens in risky Wall Street accounts and squandering their retirement security.” The thirteen candidates include Nevada’s Sharron Angle, Florida’s Marco Rubio, and Kentucky’s Rand Paul. Since August, the Democrats have repeated these accusations with increasing frequency in debates, commercials, and flyers. On the House side the accusation surfaced recently in a mailing from Massachusetts 3rd District Congressman Jim “The Constitution is Wrong” McGovern. “They want to break into your retirement,” it said. Mr. McGovern’s 4th District neighbor, Barney “Fannie Mae is Sound” Frank is running radio ads warning of the threat to the Social Security system posed by his Republican opponent Sean Bielat.

No one in the GOP had a better response to this accusation than Mr. Rubio: “It’s blatantly untrue.” During an October 6 debate he explained, “Every idea that I’ve ever advocated for Social Security would not impact a single senior in Florida. That is no one who’s over 55 years of age or older would be impacted by any of the ideas that I’ve put forth." Mr. Rubio’s response is true for other Republicans as well: the ideas they put forward will not affect anyone who is currently on Social Security or nearing retirement age. Sean Bielat, for example, wrote in a letter to Congressman Frank, “Absolutely no changes to benefits for current retirees – we made a promise to them and we should keep it.”

Democrats used to criticize George W. Bush on the grounds that his thinking lacked “nuance”. Here is a nuance that apparently is lacking in the Democrats’ thinking: there is a difference between a Social Security reform that would change the benefits of current retirees and a Social Security reform that would change the benefits of individuals retiring ten or more years down the road. Apparently this distinction is too nuanced for the Democratic Party.

And that’s too bad, because Social Security really does need reforming. According to the Congressional Budget Office, the system will begin paying out more than it takes in this year. Somewhere between 2037 and 2041 the Social Security trust fund will run out of money (“ Social Security to See Payout Exceed Pay-In This Year”, The New York Times, March 24, 2010). If nothing is done, the United States can look forward to following in the footsteps of Greece (retirement age: between 58 and 61). Unable to sustain a system where more people were supported by the government than were working, the Hellenic Republic saw its credit rating downgraded, its sovereignty ceded to lenders, and its streets overrun with rioters.

Reforming a program as vast as Social Security is like changing the direction of a cruise ship. If done far from its destination, the course correction is barely noticeable. The passengers relax in their deck chairs and help themselves to the buffet, undisturbed by the gentle arc of the vessel. But if the Captain waits until the last minute, he has to turn abruptly, overturning the deck chairs, tipping the buffet, and possibly capsizing the ship. The Republicans are behaving responsibly by proposing a course correction long before the crisis is upon us. They’ve advanced a number of ideas: raising the retirement age, partial privatization, means testing.

Unfortunately, the Democrats threaten to obstruct any change. The party that prevented reforms to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac before the housing bubble burst now seeks to prevent reforms to Social Security before that bubble bursts as well. Will the real “party of no” please stand up? Marco Rubio’s opponent Kendrick Meek is typical: “If they want to change Social Security, they’re gonna have to go through me,” he said. “I’m 6-3, former State Trooper. Used to be a football player.” His web page calls him “a firm opponent of gambling with seniors' benefits”, without mentioning that his opponent did not propose gambling or doing anything else with the benefits of anyone who is currently a senior. Maybe his attention was wandering when Marco Rubio pointed that out during the debate.

Trying to get elected by frightening seniors is just plain sleazy. A tactic like that doesn’t deserve to succeed. But this is America; our seniors, like all of us, are tough and savvy. They are way too smart to let the Dems get away with it. The purveyors of fiscal irresponsibility will be swept out of Congress, and their seats taken by those with the courage to confront our problems and do something about them.