Washington Post Spreads Anti-Social Security Lies

Robert J Samuelson is a relentless foe of Social Security and Medicare who, true to form, filled his column, “The Affluent Elderly” in the Washington Post on May 16, 2011 with lies and disinformation on the subject.
Samuelson endorses House Speaker John Boehner’s call for “trillions of dollars in spending cuts” in any deal to raise the federal debt ceiling and states it must include “significant savings in Social Security and Medicare benefits” because “subsidizing the elderly is the biggest piece of federal spending”. “Savings” in Samuelson’s Social Security and Medicare proposals means cuts in benefits for “well-off seniors” which Samuelson claims is just “…the right thing to do”.
Samuelson supports his “affluent elderly” assertion on the fact that couples 65 and older have a poverty rate of “9.7% which was half the poverty rate of children under 18”. While neither of these rates casts any credit on the richest country in the history of the World, it is appalling that Samuelson sees increasing the rate of poverty for the elderly by cutting their benefits as “the right thing to do”. Samuelson sees further justification for cutting Social Security and Medicare in the fact that 30% of elderly couples were in a “high-income” group defined as those with annual income of $52,000 for a couple in 2009. Samuelson fails to note that his statistic leaves 70% of the elderly below $52,000 per year, a percentage his cuts would clearly increase and an amount no one should mistake as “affluence”.
Samuelson also ignores data from the Social Security Administration that Social Security payments are 100% of family income for over 15% of beneficiaries, more than 50% of family income for 55% of recipients and that the average benefit was $1170 per month, again, an amount no honest observer would mistake for “affluence”.
To Samuelson these sums to the elderly are just too rich and he proclaims that “People do not lose their obligations to the larger society by turning 65”. For Samuelson this means the elderly must give up benefits he argues are excessive and undeserved. Samuelson claims this $1170 per month is a “subsidy” and is just too much to provide for the old, the poor and the sick. However, no matter how many times Samuelson spreads this lie, Social Security and Medicare are not “subsidized” by anyone. They are fully funded programs paid for by taxes on workers throughout their working years and paid back to those very same workers in their retirement years. He compounds his lie by attempting to create a generational conflict, stating “Government over subsidizes the affluent elderly. It transfers resources from the struggling young to the secure old”. In fact, the so-called “secure old” have paid Social Security taxes all their working lives. And for those retiring in 2011 they have actually paid, since 1985, nearly $3 trillion in taxes in excess of benefits paid in those years. That money is held in trust by the Social Security Administration in the form of bonds constituting the sovereign debt of the U.S. Government, for the benefit of the workers who paid those Social Security and Medicare taxes.
Samuelson and his ilk frequently ignore the trust fund or claim that it constitutes “worthless IOU’s”. Or, like Charles Krauthammer in another Washington Post column, (March 18, 2011) suggests that the government could default on the bonds held by the trust fund with no effect on U.S. credit in the world and no serious objections from the tens of millions of U.S. workers who would thus be defrauded. Krauthammer’s expectations in this regard make Pollyanna look like a pessimist. Such a default would be much more likely to create a global financial crisis and push workers to massive protests.
Samuelson repeatedly demands sacrifice to solve our fiscal problems but only from the poor, the sick and the old, who are the main beneficiaries of Social Security and Medicare. He resolutely ignores asking for sacrifices from those in our society who have so richly benefitted from its bounty. He ignores the fact that Social Security and Medicare taxes apply to only the first $106,000 dollars of earned income which amounts to 85% of total earned income. If the 15% of income received by high earners were taxed for Social Security and Medicare, the system would be completely solvent. Why should only the poor and middle class pay these taxes on their full income? And why should only earned income be subject to Social Security and Medicare taxes? If unearned income, including dividends and capital gains, were taxed the same as the income of poor and middle class workers there would be funds for a truly generous retirement for all. But recipients of high incomes and unearned income can’t be touched according to Samuelson and his compatriots because they would all stop working and investing if they were taxed at the same rates as the poor and the middle class.
Of course, the risk to our economy that a fair tax system would stifle anyone’s work ethic is an acceptable one, especially given the otherwise unfettered scope our capitalist markets provide to individual greed.
Mr. Samuelson should do some soul-searching and ask himself if perhaps the policies and programs that provided multi-trillion dollar tax cuts for the wealthy and which pursue completely unfunded wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and against global terrorism are the real causes of our fiscal crisis and that their termination is the key to a its solution?
Answering “yes” would truly be “the right thing to do.”
Joseph L. Mayer
9340 Fairfax Street
Alexandria, VA 22309
Email: xtopherrobin@msn.com
Phone: 703-360-0709