Social Security’s in a hole, so let’s stop digging

After an unexpectedly difficult primary campaign, and more than a month of waiting since she claimed the Democratic nomination, presumptive presidential nominee Hillary Clinton is expected to finally get the backing of Bernie Sanders at their joint appearance Tuesday in New Hampshire.

This is, no doubt, a relief to her. But in winning the nomination and Sanders’ endorsement, she has shifted a number of her positions leftward on issues ranging from trade to college costs. Perhaps none of these shifts is more troubling than her endorsement of a plan to expand Social Security benefits.

The idea is popular with Democrats who’ve grown tired of staking out centrist positions and see the political landscape shifting to their favor. It is also fiscally irresponsible in a first-rule-of-holes sort of way: When you’re in one, stop digging.

Social Security is already straining under the weight of fewer workers supporting larger numbers of retirees. Raising benefits would be the very antithesis of progressivism, as it involves robbing from the future to pay for the present.

Over the next decade, Social Security is projected to spend almost $2 trillion more than it takes in. Last year Social Security ran a deficit of $70 billion, forcing it to draw from the surplus it built up over the last three decades. In less than two decades, the surplus — itself something of an accounting mirage — will be gone and receipts will fall far short of expenses.

This troubling state of affairs comes despite 21 payroll tax increases since Social Security’s inception in 1937 and stems from the fact that benefits have already been rising dramatically — thanks to increased lifespans. The average retiree in 1937 collected Social Security for 12 to 13 years. Today, even with retirement ages having been raised, the average person who retires at 67 will collect for a little more than 17 years.

Now comes a call from Democrats to add even more to Social Security’s woes by further increasing what it pays out. At least Clinton’s plan is less expensive and specific than Sanders’. The Vermont senator pushed for an an across-the-board hike that amounts to about $65 more per month per beneficiary (paid for by a hefty increase in the payroll tax on income above $250,000). Clinton wants to increase benefits for low-income retirees and for people who spent considerable time outside the workforce.

Supporters of higher Social Security benefits argue that Americans have done a terrible job in saving for their own retirements, and the wealthy can afford to pay higher taxes. Both statements might be true, but the program was never intended to be a full retirement plan, and any revenue the wealthy would contribute is needed just to make up existing shortfalls in Social Security (and Medicare).

If progressives were true to their principles, they would be looking to redirect money into worthy investments in the future — not trying to expand a Social Security system already under severe strain.