It’s time to save Social Security and Medicare

Sometimes good news comes with a cloudy lining. That’s the case with the announcement that Social Security and Medicare are financially stronger than it was feared during the height of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Anything that gives Congress even more time to procrastinate over what should have been done years ago is troublesome, especially when it concerns the nation’s two most important social insurance programs.

As their trustees reported June 2, the Social Security OldAge and Survivors Insurance Trust Fund, or OASI, will be depleted by 2035, a year later than the last estimate. Medicare’s hospital trust fund will last until 2028, a two-year reprieve. And Social Security’s disability fund will last longer as well. If Congress doesn’t act before then, new taxes going into the OASI fund will be sufficient to pay for only 77% of benefits.

Just six years from now, hospitals would take a big hit as well, inevitably affecting the quality of everyone’s care.

Many Americans depend at least in part on Social Security. The average monthly benefit nationally is $1,658. In some communities, that barely pays the rent. Now think about suddenly losing $380 or more.

The last 10 annual trustees’ reports have warned that the OASDI trust fund reserves will be deleted sometime between 2033 and 2035, so Congress is aware of the problem. But Congress harbors a lot of people who refuse to see beyond the next election. Many lawmakers’ wealth desensitizes them to the real lives of most Americans. Why should someone like, say, Sen. Rick Scott, R-Florida, care about Social Security when he’s the Senate’s wealthiest man? In 2020, the Center for Responsive Politics calculated the net worth of Scott and his wife at nearly $260 million.

As chairman of the National Republican Senatorial Committee, Scott has proposed sunsetting most federal programs — which would include Social Security and Medicare. He denies that he or any other GOP senator would actually let them expire and insists that programming them to self-destruct would simply compel Congress to stabilize them.

If Scott had his way, Social Security and Medicare would depend for their financial health, if not their actual survival, on the whims of as few as 40 of the 100 senators, due to the filibuster rule. Their price for taking action would very likely include raising the standard retirement age from the present 67 to 70 or even beyond. It’s a bad idea. As people age, many become less physically capable of their jobs. Some are laid off so younger people can be hired at lower salaries.

Means-testing benefits is another perennial right-wing idea. It would turn Social Security into a welfare program rather than the universal insurance it’s meant to be. That would be a step toward destroying it.

Senate Minority Leader

Mitch McConnell says Scott’s scheme wouldn’t be part of the GOP agenda if they win the Senate this November. That assumes someone even more conservative doesn’t replace him. He hasn’t said what Republicans would do to strengthen Social Security and Medicare.

The Democrats’ most significant idea would extend the 12.4% payroll tax (split at 6.2% each between workers and employers) to higher earnings. It’s now capped at $147,000. Most of their proposals, though, envision paying for higher benefits with some of the new money. That does not seem to be a realistic prospect.

It doesn’t matter whether or not Congress ever intended retirees to depend entirely on Social Security. Today’s reality is what matters. According to the National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare, half of all working-age families have $5,000 or less in retirement savings. That picture will only worsen with high inflation.

Social Security is indispensable to the nation’s future. Every candidate for Congress should be forthright about what they intend to protect it before the calendar reads 2035. The nearer the deadline, the greater the pressure for a temporary fix instead of the permanent assurance that all workers and retirees deserve.