My current CongressCritter, Chris Pappas, is running for US Senate this year, and his probable opponent in November is former Senator John E. Sununu. Yesterday, I noticed a tweeted article from Pappas: My Commitment to New Hampshire Seniors. Since I am (full disclosure) a New Hampshire Senior, I Read the Whole Thing! And so can you. It's short, simple, and stupid:
91 years ago today, the Social Security Act was signed into law by Franklin D. Roosevelt.
It was built on a simple promise: After a lifetime of hard work, Americans deserve the security of a dignified retirement.
But not everyone has stood by that promise.
For generations Social Security has helped seniors pay their bills, stay in their homes, and afford the rising cost of living.
John Sununu has spent years trying to cut the safety net that seniors rely on as they transition into retirement – while telling voters another story.
Sununu is the architect of the plan to privatize Social Security.
More than once, he introduced legislation that would've redirected seniors' Social Security benefits into private accounts susceptible to Wall Street volatility.
That’s not protecting Social Security.
I’m proud to have the endorsement of the National Committee to Preserve Social Security & Medicare PAC.
I helped pass the Social Security Fairness Act and will keep fighting to strengthen benefits.
New Hampshire seniors deserve a senator who will fight for them – not one who will put their benefits at risk.
91 years ago today, our country made a promise to the American people. Unlike John Sununu, I intend to keep that promise.
The grain of truth in Pappas's article: when Sununu was in the Senate, he and Paul Ryan authored the "Social Security Personal Savings and Prosperity Act of 2004". It would have allowed (not forced) younger workers to divert a small fraction of their income to their own private retirement accounts.
After a fierce and demagogic debate, it went nowhere. Back in 2005, I quoted James Glassman about the controversy:
One side likes the government to take care of people, whether they need it or not. The other side -- which I'm on -- likes people to make their own choices and take responsibility for their own lives.
And the government fans won. The WaPo's Brad Plumer offered a 2012 post-mortem on the plan here. (WaPo gifted link) And, if you are a real propeller-head, you can read the analysis of the Social Security Administration's Chief Actuary: Estimated Financial Effects of the "Social Security Personal Savings and Prosperity Act of 2004,"
But the bottom line, over 20 years later: the Ryan-Sununu plan was an attempt to deal with the problem that was completely obvious back then: the fundamental insolvency of the Social Security "trust fund". And (so) nothing was done.
Well, not nothing: As Pappas notes, he helped pass the "Social Security Fairness Act".
Which moved the insolvency date about six months earlier than before.
So what does Pappas propose to deal with the upcoming insolvency? The one that, by law, will impose an approximate 22% cut in benefits across the board? Let me introduce my lovely backup singer, Jane Wickline:
(Apologies if you have to sit through an ad first.)
Coincidentally, I came across Veronique de Rugy's advice: What you should be worried about when politicians tell you they won't touch entitlements.
A politician who promises never to cut Social Security or Medicare sounds like he’s protecting you. Take the promise at face value and follow it to the end, and it turns into a different promise, one no one campaigns on: inflation, sooner than you think.
Under current law, when the Social Security and Medicare Part A (hospital insurance) trust funds run dry in the early 2030s, benefits are supposed to be cut automatically so they match the revenue raised for the programs. That fiscal cliff doesn’t exist for other parts of Medicare. Parts B and D, which cover physician services and drugs, draw about three-quarters of their funding from general revenue rather than a trust fund, and they have no depletion date to force a conversation about reforms.
You wouldn’t know that the “do nothing approach” to Medicare and Social Security insolvency is a set of benefit cuts by reviewing CBO projections. Congress directed the scoring agency to ignore current law and instead assume that the gap between payroll taxes collected, and benefits will be borrowed to pay all benefits. Under that scenario, CBO tells us, debt to GDP will grow from 100.6 percent to 175.1 percent in 30 years. Brookings Institution’s Jessica Riedl calculated that this is $138 trillion in new debt interest included, through 2056. And it arrives just as debt held by the public passes its World War II record relative to the economy.
Yet, CBO projects that inflation stays at the Fed’s 2 percent target as debt explodes.
Vero's skeptical about that, and so am I.
What I'm not skeptical about: Pappas's "commitment" to seniors will at best screw everyone else.
![[The Blogger]](/ps/images/barred.jpg)
