Social Security ‘Crisis’: Lensing the Framing: Part 1
by Bruce Webb
The immediate economic/political news this week will revolve around Health Care and then transition to Jobs. Which is a good thing because I could really use a job with health care benefits. But Social Security blogging is what I do so here is a piece on the various ways in which Social Security ‘crisis’ is viewed which in turn controls the structuring of the proposed solutions. A lot of meta with not much in the way of numbers so I’ll tuck it unobtrusively under the fold.
Once again I’ll let Baker and Weisbrot set the stage from their 1999 ‘Social Security: the Phony Crisis’
We have a chance, said President Clinton, to “fix the roof while the sun is still shining.” He was talking about dealing with Social Security immediately, while the economy is growing and the federal budget is balanced. The audience was a regional conference on Social Security, in Kansas City, Missouri, that the White House had helped bring together.
The roof analogy is illuminating, but we can make it more accurate. Imagine that it’s not going to rain for more than 30 years. And the rain, when it does arrive (and it might not), will be pretty light. And imagine that the average household will have a lot more income for roof repair by the time the rain approaches.
Now add this: most of the people who say they want to fix the roof actually want to knock holes in it.
Exactly so. Meaning that the first step in engaging in a defense of Social Security is to determine if your opponents falls in the ‘mend it’ category or the ‘end it’. Is the problem that Social Security is fundamentally broken? or that it exists at all?
By the Seventies the latter question seemed to be settled, Social Security was the Third Rail of American Politics, conventional wisdom said if you tinkered with it you died. This is not to say that people believed the program itself was perfect, Social Security having been adjusted both as to form with the addition of first survivors and later disability insurance and requiring periodic adjustments in the tax rate, but apart from some Randian Objectivists few people were willing to attack the concept openly even if they doubted the ultimate solvency. But those who were in what we would now call Movement Conservatism, that strand leading from Landon to Reagan never embraced Social Security and warned against expansion of the concept via Medicare and federalized Welfare programs, it was just that through the sixties and seventies they were stymied by a combination of the Democratic coalition forged in the New Deal along with the more liberal to moderate North East style Republicanism that came to be known as the Rockefeller Wing, which could be typified as those Republicans who believed in Good Government (in previous generations known as ‘Goo Goos’ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goo-goos)
But of course the ground was moving under their feet. The forces unleashed by the Civil Rights movement, the anti-war movement, environmentalism, and the counterculture served both to fracture the New Deal Coalition, particularly as a result of the Southern Realignment and to undermine the mostly Northeastern and Mid-Western power structure of the Republican Party and moved that power South and West and we could add Right as well. And one result among many is that fundamental hostility to Social Security transformed from being a fringe position to being that of the center of Movement Conservatism and Reaganism.
The end result of the Greenspan Commission of 1982-83 was a compromise fix of Social Security and this has fed a myth that all parties were pre-committed to a ‘mend it’ and not ‘end it’ position. The accounts of the actual participants show this was not true, the decision to mend came after a bitter deadlock, that was broken only after Reagan concluded he didn’t have the votes to do what he wanted. Even at that it was a close thing, Reagan having committed to the deal having to do some arm twisting on some of the Republican Commissioners and still ending up with three No votes on final.
In the aftermath of what they called among themselves the ‘fiasco’ represented by the 1983 compromise, ideological opponents of Social Security literally regrouped themselves around what would become the Cato Project on Social Security Privatization (now Cato Project on Social Security Choice) and undertook a joint reframing exercise on Social Security that in one incarnation was labeled the ‘Leninist Strategy’. Rather than an open attack on Social Security as being a bad thing in and of itself, a position largely untenable at the time, they simply set out to undermine future support for it, primarily among younger workers, and selling the message that whatever you thought of Social Security in principle, that long term it was guaranteed to fail in practice, and so that while it could be patched, there was no permanent ‘mend it’ solution, meaning that at some point it would need to be addressed by an ‘end it’ or at least ‘transform it’ strategy.
Which is where we are today. The fundamental opposition to Social Security is where it has been since Alf Landon ran against it in the 1936 Presidential election, but the framing built on top of that foundation has been reshaped into one where the problem is not that Social Security is inherently bad, but that it is irretrievably broken. The problem for those opponents is that they can not concede either on ‘irretrievable’ or ‘broken’, that would simply case them to fall back on a ‘socialism’ argument that has been proven unpersuasive to a population that can say with no apparent sense of irony ‘keep government out of my Social Security’.
It is this commitment to the concept of “irretrievable” that seems to baffle supporters of Social Security. They live in a mental world that believes ‘Social Security is a social good that if possible should be fixed” as opposed to a mental world that holds ‘Social Security is a social evil that is also broken, but should not be fixed in any event’. For opponents ‘crisis’ is more seen as ‘opportunity’. Which is why you have to smile at the naivete of progressives who see the answer as being blindingly obvious, just raise the cap. For opponents any fix to Social Security misses the fundamental problem it poses, and the very worst possible approach would be one that moves Social Security even farther in terms of redistribution. For them the answer to socialism is not more socialism, supporters of a cap increase might as well be speaking Martian in terms of likelihood of delivering that particular message.
For years I thought that the answer to Social Security ‘crisis’ was to point out that the problem, to the extent it even was a problem, was small, on balance shrinking, meaning that the cost of a fix going forward would likely end up smaller than projected, and expect this would be received as good news. Who wouldn’t want a cheap and easy fix to an issue that was being framed as being broken? Not quite getting that for opponents of Social Security that brokenness was the best feature of Social Security, it giving them the opening they needed to address the real problem, which is socialism in America. They believe they have their hands around the neck of socialistic Social Security which is half-choked and ready to be shoved in Grover Norquist’s bathtub for final drowning and here come Coberly and Webb suggesting the patient would be okay if you just opened up his airway a little. Man talk about missing the point.
_______________________________
This post was originally heading in a different direction. That argument will have to be saved for Part 2.
The SS arguments will be multi polar.
There are more than one variety of the kill SS: anti-socialism, it will bankrupt the US if the special treasuries are paid back (deficit hawks and defaulters), it is the aged pillaging the young (okay for militarism to plunder the US), and more……..
There are some of the menders that are killers in disguise. Those include the raise taxers (see militariist plundering, so there is no prouctivity gains to care for the aged), and their cut benefits and raise ages kindred spirits, privatizers (put the money in Lockheed the F-35 adds so much to national output) etc.
There are the SS is not broke fix the fiscal house and end its damage to productivity growth groups.
There are the real socialists.
Each group will have a “message” and there will be some alliances and re-negotiation to set up camps.
However, the danger to debate is the militarists’ (the golden goose of SS surpluses being reduced) and sycophants’ expertise in psywar, and fear mongering.
I will be into arguing and exposing the psywar blither as it comes up.
There has been class warfare in the US since the federalists gave the elites the upper hand.
If the politicians were really interested in fixing Social Security, one way to tinker with it would be to do away with spousal benefits. As it stands now, only one person in a marriage needs to contribute to Social Security, but the couple is entitled to collect benefits amounting to one-and-a-half on that contribution when both are of age to do so. One of the reasons that I like this idea is that it would drive the Republicans into a froth, as they are more likely to be the ones hurt by such a fix.
Bruce:
Did you pick up on this:
Page 10: “Protect the Social Security Trust Funds. The President’s Proposal provides that, if necessary, funds will be transferred to the Social Security Trust Funds to ensure that they are held harmless by the Proposal.”
from here: http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/summary-presidents-proposal.pdf “The President’s Proposal for Healthcare”
No Run I didn’t but predicted as much on mechanical grounds.
It would be quote difficult to adjust payroll programs to take the credit upfront while relatively easy to take it as a tax credit. The exceptions would be certain startups.
At least based on a top of my head calc before the fact
Julie, what about divorced spouses? Especially those whose careers were put on hold for 10 or more years while they raised children. Or those who spend their 50’s and possibly 60’s caring for elderly parents. Are you saying that the work done by women who are not employed, or under-employed outside the home, is of no economic consequence? That they should be penalized because their contributions are not paid for at the time they make them? This is not a Democrat/Republican issue. It’s a human/women’s issue.
Given that Obama has just about thrown Public Option under the bus and not much is being done, bottom up, about jobs, this is looking like a particularly depressing week. I’m not optimistic about what his commission is going to come up with for Social Security. Then consider that people are not in a patient mood – and they believe all the “crisis” garbage which Obama and Congress unwittingly parrot.
The fact that single-payer would have not only done a better job of attaining universal coverage but also would have changed the landscape for Medicare as well as both government and private spending on health care is lost on people whose opinions are influenced by “where the money and power is,” not to mention those who can’t see clearly through the hordes of imaginary socialists besetting them. (Could we make a case that the latter group are insane?)
What you’ve hit on here, Bruce, isn’t limited to Social Security. It’s the reason we find we’re in a box. On its face the idea that it’s people to the right who are screaming and demanding a “reset” of America seems ridiculous (and upside down/backwards). What it is, however, is a dangerous call for more of what we’ve had for the past 30 years. Just as you initially thought that providing an answer to the potential shortfall of Social Security would be a welcome solution (I did, too), the majority of the left thinks that it’s enough to show the truth about the real redistribution that’s been going on. And yet, even as more people lose their jobs, their homes, their retirement savings, their health care options, they fail to grasp what’s going on. They cry out in desperation, but as they do so they are playing to a script written by those who got us here.
Linda this was a minefield I didn’t need to tread on. But now that you raise it how many of those widows spent some years as primary caregivers of their HUSBAND’s parents?
Cross culture and cross history the burden of the Mother-In-Law has tended to fall on the Wife.
Bruce, you’re right! They say if you want someone to care for you in your old age, be sure to have a daughter. I suppose if you’re not that fortunate, you hope your son will marry a “good woman.”
The signing of social security reform legislation in 1983, officially launched the assault on middle class America, using SS as the weapon of choice. Using AARP for cover, entitlement seniors are being used to financially water board their own children and grand children. SS and surrounding issues, and the solution to each can be found at http://www.americaretoday.com
hey Bruce I do not know if you are still checking back, but i have a question you may have answered in the past, but I am not sure. One of the talking points of those who wish to kill social security on ideological grounds is the massive “unfunded liability” it represents. The numbers you hear are always combined social security and medicare and medicare of course does have very serious funding issues on the order of 40 or 70 trillion which is a lot of money. I have some recollection that social security’s “unfunded” exposure is like 6 trillion over 75 years as always assuming a mid cost scenario. Are those the right numbers?
Around $5 trillion over 75 years $17 trillion over the Infinite Future Horizon.
Jim G,
“Entitltement seniors” …used to ….”financially waterbroad”…….their OWN children.
How much like Peoples’ Liberation Army divisions posed to attack Vietnam once the Viet Minh took over in 1956?
AARP works for the concentration of US wealth in the hands of a tiny minority of elites, not for the fictitous but vicious on the “own children” “entitlement seniors”.
Your post is filled with psywar falsehoods.
This blogger fights psywarriors.
Why don’t the militarists have to worry about their unfunded trough? Their unfunded liability over the next 10 years is close to $7.6 Trillion.
The F-35 Lightning II cost of ownership over the next 20 years, assuming the burdensome waste is placed on the shoulders of working Americans is about a $1 Trillion, and none of that is funded now.
And that Trillion is taken away from improving infrastructure, building schools, educating medical personnel and other uses which would improve the living standard of US citizens.
Worse the technology developed took engineers away from better things like designing wind turbines. And the manufacturing competencies developed do not make improved productivity.
In fact the thing does not pass any design tests and is not equal to many older designs in certain criticsal uses.
The pentagon’s unfunded liability over the next 20 years is $15 Billion, if the militarists continue to influence congress to appropriate to their waste and war profits.
Why don’t the militarists have to worry about their unfunded trough? Their unfunded liability over the next 10 years is close to $7.6 Trillion.
The F-35 Lightning II cost of ownership over the next 20 years, assuming the burdensome waste is placed on the shoulders of working Americans is about a $1 Trillion, and none of that is funded now.
And that Trillion is taken away from improving infrastructure, building schools, educating medical personnel and other uses which would improve the living standard of US citizens.
Worse the technology developed took engineers away from better things like designing wind turbines. And the manufacturing competencies developed do not make improved productivity.
In fact the thing does not pass any design tests and is not equal to many older designs in certain criticsal uses.
The pentagon’s unfunded liability over the next 20 years is $15 Trillion, if the militarists continue to influence congress to appropriate to their waste and war profits.
Keep up the good work.
As I pondered where the number $15T came from (lower than I would have thought), I got curious. Do you know what the life cycle cost our nuclear arsenal is thus far?
Strange question, I know but, in order to be prepared for all things possible, we have a lot of defense capability that may be never used. This needs facilities, personnel, supplies, maintenance, and whatever. Some need upgrades and new generations which is also an ongoing cost that is not captured adequately in life cycle estimates.
I don’t see how anyone estimates defense projected costs. Sorry to be so dumb.
It takes some poking around with definitions but the upshot is that the 100 year actuarial gap is larger than the Infinite Future gap meaning that Social Security projects to return to Pay-Go status sometime after 2010. Not that the numbers are meaningful that far out but that is how they shake out arithmetically.
Thanks. I am getting easy when even the token liberal on the Kudlow Report talks about the need to get entitlement spending under control. There was a really interesting call into the local right wing talk radio show where the host was touting the public’s distrust of government. The guy who called in sounded a lot like me–kids grown, decent amount of savings, decent income, mortgage paid (I still owe from the loan to pay for the kids college) and said he wanted to buy a new car but wouldn’t because of the uncertainty about social security and medicare. I am sure the guy votes Republican and Obama is not going to get his vote by refusing to take social security off the table. At the same time he is not only losing Democratic votes, but by hurting the economy is not helping himself with independents either. It just makes no sense.
Assume the current level of militarism, spreading the unproductive excessive war profits around congress and the pentagon, is maintained, quite likely since the only “cutters” in memory have been Carter, Bush, and modestly Clinton. Note two of three are one termers.
My estimate is $.75T for the coming 20 years.
I have not seen ownership costs for the US nuclear arsenal. I believe at one time during the heyday of mutul assured destruction (MAD) it was nearly a third of the militarism impediment dragging the US under, with huge arguments on how best to not get caught determining ways to fight and “win” a nuclear war.
Now the arsenal is much smaller, almost unnecessary and still hugely expensive and troublesome in terms of security and the production of nuclear waste, while maintaining plants to make more waste.
The nuclear arsenal has been and continues to be a grotesque example of militarism at its best pillaging and endangering the very nation it cons into thinking it is serving.
The A bomb let an evil, gluttonous genie out of Pandora’s box.
Keep in mind that we need to look at these costs in relation to something else over the infinite horizon, namely GDP. I didn’t source the following claim that states the 2008 Medicare Trustee Reports pegs US GDP at some $1,300 trillion over the infinite horizon (that’s $1.4 quadrillion).
http://newsburglar.com/2009/03/13/the-national-balance-sheet-of-the-united-states/
ilsm – comment without research is exactly why we are in the mess we’re in
What I’m saying is that if only one person of a married couple puts in, maybe “they” should get the equivalent of one out. Split the amount between the two in case of divorce. Otherwise, make them put in for one-and-a-half in order to get one-and-a-half out. Single moms don’t have the luxury of staying at home to take care of an elderly parent. The needs of elderly parents need to be addressed in some other way than through Social Security, say by paying a stipend to the caretaker, which would be the cost efficient thing for the government to do, after all.
julie
if you are still around
you miss the whole point about social security. it’s insurance. a lot of those spouses, for example, earn enough to qualify for their own benefit, but get marginally more if they take their (husband) spousal benefit and FOREGO their “own.” I don’t honestly know what the arithmetic in this case comes out like. but social security pays for itself and it is a good deal for everyone who pays into it. including the rich who don’t get quite the rate of return they are used to, but get the insurance just in case, and have the advantage of living in a country where the workers don’t face extreme povertly in old age.
there is nothing wrong with social security, and we dont’ need to “fix” it by attacking someone else’s benefits. it’s called envy and it’s a sin for a reason: it makes people stupid and self destructive.