Democrats: Do not help Republicans carry out their sneaky anti-Social Security agenda
With the GOP controlling both houses of Congress, they have to be forced to own this issue


The Republican plot to slash Social Security has moved to the Senate. After House Republicans changed the rules to ensure that the disability side of the program (SSDI) will run out of cash in late 2016, it was the Senate GOP's turn to bash the program in a Budget Committee hearing.
They say that Social Security is fundamentally flawed. We can't transfer money from the retirement side to the disability side, because that would be financially irresponsible. They frame this as "robbing Peter to pay Paul," which is apparently the slogan of choice, since it was repeated by several GOP senators at the hearing. The SSDI fund will "soon be broke," said committee Chair Mike Enzi (R-Wyo.) "I'm really tired of bailing out water," said Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.).
This is a bunch of nonsense. It is designed to obscure a pure ideological agenda of cutting benefits. And Democrats, including President Obama, should not play along.
Subscribe to The Week
Escape your echo chamber. Get the facts behind the news, plus analysis from multiple perspectives.

Sign up for The Week's Free Newsletters
From our morning news briefing to a weekly Good News Newsletter, get the best of The Week delivered directly to your inbox.
From our morning news briefing to a weekly Good News Newsletter, get the best of The Week delivered directly to your inbox.
First, SSDI is not "broke." Even without the trust fund, it can pay over 80 percent of current benefits. The retirement side of Social Security is fine until 2034, and topping up SSDI out of that money would only shave one year off that. Michael Hiltzik has a full breakdown of Social Security's finances.
But there's a bigger problem here. In our boneheaded political culture, doing things for future generations counts as the height of responsible policy-making. We have to cut the deficit on account of the children, Very Serious People are always saying.
It's an obnoxious pose, since it writes off the travails of, you know, the living. But in a deep sense it's not very feasible. No financial projection has perfect foresight, and today's Congress cannot bind the hands of future Congresses. For example, when the government got the national budget briefly into surplus under Bill Clinton in the late 1990s, a new government under George W. Bush reversed course and gave most of the proceeds to the rich.
Generally speaking, the same principle holds for retirement. We can't "fix" Social Security right now with a magic-wand policy. It will always need to be maintained.
So let's restate the principles behind Social Security. First, old and disabled people should not have to work. Therefore, we provide them with a stipend to live on. It has been an enormous success, cutting elderly poverty by 71 percent.
The problem we face with Social Security is, for the most part, simple demographics. People are getting older, and therefore there are more not-working people per current worker. What to do about that situation clearly depends on two factors: our ability to pay, and a judgment about the worthiness of the people getting Social Security.
As for the first, maintaining Social Security indefinitely would cost about 1 percent of GDP over the long term. That is half the cost of the Bush tax cuts — something the nation can easily afford. The second is what's driving this entire debate. Republicans don't think people on SSDI are deserving, and are trying to claw back some of the benefits. As such, they've begun a campaign of anti-SSDI agitprop, coupled with a blizzard of irrelevant accounting argle-bargle to obscure their real motivation.
But conservatives must be made to own this. No Democrat should give them political cover as part of a bipartisan bargain to raise the payroll tax and cut benefits, as President Obama has repeatedly come close to doing. Republicans control both houses of Congress, so if they believe SSDI benefits are too high (at a whopping $1,165 per month), then they should pass legislation to that effect.
Sign up for Today's Best Articles in your inbox
A free daily email with the biggest news stories of the day – and the best features from TheWeek.com
Ryan Cooper is a national correspondent at TheWeek.com. His work has appeared in the Washington Monthly, The New Republic, and the Washington Post.
-
How the woke right gained power in the US
Under the radar The term has grown in prominence since Donald Trump returned to the White House
By Chas Newkey-Burden, The Week UK
-
Codeword: April 24, 2025
The Week's daily codeword puzzle
By The Week Staff
-
Crossword: April 24, 2025
The Week's daily crossword
By The Week Staff
-
The JFK files: the truth at last?
In The Spotlight More than 64,000 previously classified documents relating the 1963 assassination of John F. Kennedy have been released by the Trump administration
By The Week Staff
-
'Seriously, not literally': how should the world take Donald Trump?
Today's big question White House rhetoric and reality look likely to become increasingly blurred
By Sorcha Bradley, The Week UK
-
Will Trump's 'madman' strategy pay off?
Today's Big Question Incoming US president likes to seem unpredictable but, this time round, world leaders could be wise to his playbook
By Sorcha Bradley, The Week UK
-
Democrats vs. Republicans: who are the billionaires backing?
The Explainer Younger tech titans join 'boys' club throwing money and support' behind President Trump, while older plutocrats quietly rebuke new administration
By Harriet Marsden, The Week UK
-
US election: where things stand with one week to go
The Explainer Harris' lead in the polls has been narrowing in Trump's favour, but her campaign remains 'cautiously optimistic'
By Harriet Marsden, The Week UK
-
Is Trump okay?
Today's Big Question Former president's mental fitness and alleged cognitive decline firmly back in the spotlight after 'bizarre' town hall event
By Harriet Marsden, The Week UK
-
The life and times of Kamala Harris
The Explainer The vice-president is narrowly leading the race to become the next US president. How did she get to where she is now?
By The Week UK
-
Will 'weirdly civil' VP debate move dial in US election?
Today's Big Question 'Diametrically opposed' candidates showed 'a lot of commonality' on some issues, but offered competing visions for America's future and democracy
By Harriet Marsden, The Week UK