By Michael Tanner
Wednesday, February 17, 2016
It was lost amid the hullabaloo over his Iraq War
conspiracy theories, but Donald Trump’s answer to a question about Social
Security and the national debt during last Saturday’s Republican debate may
have raised even more important questions about how far off track this campaign
has gone.
Trump was asked about how he would balance the budget
without cutting programs like Social Security, and he responded, “You have
tremendous waste, fraud, and abuse. That we’re taking care of. That we’re
taking care of. It’s tremendous. We have in Social Security right now thousands
and thousands of people that are over 106 years old. Now, you know they don’t
exist. They don’t exist. There’s tremendous waste, fraud, and abuse, and we’re going
to get it. But we’re not going to hurt the people who have been paying into
Social Security their whole life and then all of a sudden they’re supposed to
get less.”
Now, it is true, according to Social Security’s inspector
general, that there are as many as 6.5 million Social Security numbers linked
to people over the age of 112. But almost none of those people are receiving
benefits. Their accounts simply were never officially closed following their
deaths. So there was a bit of Trumpian hyperbole here.
More importantly, however, Social Security’s unfunded
liabilities approach $26 trillion. That’s not because of waste or
administrative glitches; it’s because of shifting demographics. We are living longer
and having fewer babies. In 1950 there were 16.5 workers paying into the system
for every retiree taking benefits out. Today there are just under three. By the
time our children retire, there will barely be two.
The idea that we can save Social Security without making
any changes to the system — without anyone getting less or paying more — is
part and parcel of the budget fantasies that Republicans have been indulging
this campaign season. (Democrats indulge such fantasies regardless of the
season.)
The national debt is on a trajectory to increase from $19
trillion today to $29.3 trillion by 2026. According to the Government
Accountability Office, improper payments — the government’s catch-all term for
“waste, fraud, and abuse” — amounted to roughly $125 billion in 2014. That’s
real money. And it almost certainly understates the real amount of waste. But,
still, it is nowhere near enough for its elimination to balance the budget on
its own.
If we are serious about cutting federal spending, we need
to look at where the money really goes.
Democrats like to blame defense spending. But
discretionary defense spending currently makes up roughly 15 percent of federal
spending. More importantly, these outlays are expected to fall by 8 percent over the next decade, after inflation and
population growth are accounted for.
Meanwhile, conservatives criticize domestic discretionary
spending. After all, this includes those social-welfare programs conservatives
hate. And it is the home for much of the waste, fraud, and abuse that Trump was
talking about. But all domestic discretionary spending combined — everything
from the FBI to the FDA, from the Department of Education to the Department of
Commerce — is just another 15.5 percent of federal spending. And, after
inflation and population growth are accounted for, it is expected to decline by 12 percent over the next ten
years.
Undoubtedly, there are domestic programs that are
wasteful or that do more harm than good. In fact, it’s hard to think of one
that doesn’t fall into one of those categories. We should cut wherever we can.
And defense is hardly immune from waste, even if you assume that all of our
far-flung military interventions are truly necessary to national security. But
the truth is, neither defense nor domestic discretionary spending is
responsible for our growing debt crisis.
Just three programs, Social Security, Medicare, and
Medicaid, currently absorb more than half of all federal spending. And, unlike
defense or discretionary domestic spending, they are growing. Medicaid spending
will rise by 21 percent over the next ten years, even after inflation and
population growth are taken into account. Social Security will be up 30
percent. And Medicare is expected to increase by a stunning 40 percent. How can
one possibly expect to reduce the debt without making some sort of reforms to
these programs?
Instead, we get the assertion that we’re going to end
“waste, fraud, and abuse,” an empty promise that dates back at least to Jimmy
Carter.
On the Democratic side, both Hillary Clinton and Bernie
Sanders stand steadfastly against entitlement reform. Indeed, both candidates
talk breezily about increasing benefits. But we should expect better from
Republicans.
This is not a criticism solely of Trump. All the GOP
candidates have been remarkably tentative about discussing the need for cutting
entitlement spending. The reason is readily apparent. In Iowa, 27 percent of
caucus goers were over 65, and another 46 percent were between 45 and 65. In
New Hampshire, 68 percent of Republican primary voters were over 45. In South
Carolina, seniors are expected to make up a quarter of registered voters. It is
no wonder that Republicans are afraid of offending them.
Yet, it is impossible to balance the budget or reduce the
size of government without offending somebody.
We’ve heard a lot in this campaign about “leadership,”
“strength,” “courage,” and “standing up to the special interests.” But the
candidates who promise to stare down ISIS mano a mano cannot bring themselves
to tell grandma that programs like Social Security and Medicare are
unsustainable at their current levels.
The primary campaign appears to be descending into
another round of: “You’re a liar.” “No, you’re
a liar.” Perhaps, if someone wanted to stand out, he could start with a little
truth-telling about the budget.
But that would take “leadership,” “strength,” “courage,”
and “standing up to the special interests.”
No comments:
Post a Comment