Editorial: Looming battle over Social Security and Medicare needs reasoned debate

The rhetorical war between the right and the left over the future of America’s safety net programs for its seniors is getting hotter as the presidential election nears.

The latest trigger was a set of recommendations by the Republican Study Conference (RSC), made up mainly of House GOP members, on preserving Social Security and Medicare, both of which are on a course of not being able to meet their obligations to beneficiaries within the next decade.

Democrats predictably pounced at what they perceive as a political gift. Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer called the RSC’s plans “crazy” on the Senate floor, which hardly was helpful to any debate. President Joe Biden responded, “Let me be clear. I will stop them.” That’s even though the RSC pointed out that Biden had, in fact, supported some similar suggestions when he was vice president. Politics.

The politics on sacrosanct entitlements such as Social Security and Medicare have been clear for decades. Politicians who have dared to challenge the status quo — from George W. Bush to Paul Ryan — have failed.

Donald Trump recently stumbled into the controversy — perhaps unwittingly — when he said, “There’s a lot you can do in terms of entitlements, in terms of cutting.” The immediate backlash caused him to backtrack as fast as he could and claim it was all a misunderstanding.

Some things never change. But, eventually, change must come.

The trustees for both programs — landmark and historic legislative achievements in providing a dignified life to Americans in their golden years — have said effectively they are unsustainable given present demographics, revenue and costs and will hit a tipping point within a decade.

The latest Republican policy prescriptions aren’t particularly new and some have enjoyed Democratic support in the past. Ryan, a former House speaker from Janesville, Wis., and Mitt Romney’s running mate for president in 2012, was perhaps the nation’s foremost proponent of benefit reductions to both programs. The RSC’s most recent budget included recommendations like raising the retirement age at which Americans would qualify for Social Security, applying those changes to workers who are relatively young now rather than those nearing the current full retirement age of 67. The RSC also is proposing changes to the formula of how Social Security benefits are calculated and even suggests a gradual transition towards a “flat benefit.”

The document also calls for overhauling Medicare to allow for competition with the traditional Medicare program from private health plans for the health-care benefits seniors get from the federal government. Ryan’s advocacy for that approach was heavily criticized by organizations like AARP as benefit cuts.

It’s not as if Democrats are proposing to do nothing even if their proposed solutions are predictable. Biden has proposed substantial tax hikes on incomes above $400,000 to bolster Medicare’s finances, which he claims would keep the program fiscally healthy until at least 2050.

Since Ryan ran afoul of Trump during Trump’s presidency and retired from Congress, the discussion on American’s senior safety net has quieted — until these very recent trial balloons from the House GOP and Biden. But that doesn’t mean the issues have gone away. The day of reckoning for both Social Security and Medicare is ever nearer.

As an old car-repair shop’s ads used to say, “You can pay me now or pay me later.”

We’re not naive enough to believe serious negotiations will take place during this election year. But the clock is ticking, and the positioning between the two parties seems to be hardening. There are essentially two methods to preserve these essential programs — more revenues or cost reductions. Or, of course, a combination of the two. Within those two broad categories, though, there are many approaches available to those keen on solving the problem rather than scoring political points.

Tackling Medicare and Social Security involves more than just those two programs, as important as they are. The current level of federal budget deficits isn’t sustainable; both the right and left agree on that much. Medicare, Social Security and Medicaid account for about 45% of all federal spending. Some glibly describe the federal government as an insurance company with an army. There’s some truth to that.

If we’ve learned little else though these tumultuous, polarized recent years, it’s that neither the right nor the left enjoys enough public support to push through major policy initiatives on an entirely partisan basis. That isn’t likely to change after the November election, whoever wins.

There will be no greater test of whether our politics is broken beyond any near-term prospect of repair than what happens to Social Security and Medicare. Polling consistently shows that millennials and younger generations are highly skeptical they will even get Social Security when they’re eligible. With no changes, by 2033 Social Security will be able to pay out only about 75% of retirees’ entitlements, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office.

For now, as we prepare for November, we would love to see both Republicans and Democrats tone down the rhetoric and quit drawing red lines in the sand. At the end of the day, there are many practical steps available on the menu of possibilities to give future generations confidence that the safety net available to today’s seniors will be there for them, too, when the time comes. And it’s incontrovertible that the Social Security system originally was designed for shorter retirements than often is the case today. Sure, that deepens the challenge and may mean more of us have to wait for that golden years check, at least in terms of full payment. But we can all be glad for the advances in healthcare that have lengthened our lives.

When the time comes to negotiate in good faith, and it will come, we will need leaders willing to put the future of their country above short-term political advantages.

___