OPINION: Why not fix Social Security?

It is widely understood that by 2035 the Social Security system will be unable to provide the promised benefits. Social Security and Medicare account for the greatest and growing part of the federal budget, and they are unsustainable absent serious reform.

So why do our national policymakers continue to ignore the problem and avoid the necessary reforms? They do so because as soon as anyone suggests dealing with the problem, they are accused of pushing Granny and her wheelchair off the cliff, i.e. you will be attacked and your reelection will be threatened. This is so because current and future recipients believe the party should go on especially because they “paid” for the benefit through their payroll deductions. The reality is they paid in for only a part of their benefit and the rest is a gift from taxpayers.

Politicians avoid the problem as Social Security is known as the “third rail of politics” — you touch it and you will pay dearly. So, just kick it down the road and promise you will protect those benefits while thumping on your chest for your heroism for protecting Grandma. It takes courage and honesty to deal with what is a major problem, and both courage and honesty seem to be in short supply in Washington, D.C.  

Actually, the problem can be solved quite easily and with minimal pain. In 1935 when Social Security was implemented, many people failed to live to the age when benefits began. Those who did, lived an average of three years receiving benefits. Given the change in life expectancy since 1935, now the average recipient enjoys the benefit for approximately 13 years.

So, part of the solution is to raise the age for eligibility — modestly and probably only for those 45 years of age or younger. It must be done. In addition, the income level above which Social Security tax is paid should not be limited at $168,600 as it is now but applied to all wage income. Finally, and this is probably the hardest, those who continue to earn above a certain level should have their benefit delayed until they no longer have that income. I suggest $150,000 for a single filer and $250,000 for a couple. I know, you say you earned it, but you really didn’t, and you won’t grow hungry at $150,000 or more. These reforms would save the system and touch only those who could survive the reform quite comfortably.

• • •

Dean Haagenson is a former state legislator and resident of Hayden.