Ryan Streeter
I’m going to ask a politically incorrect question: why should we continue to protect everyone over the age of 55 in our entitlement reform efforts?
Any feasible plan to reform Medicare and Social Security always starts with the provision that we won’t apply any changes to the programs to people over 55. For instance, Paul Ryan’s Roadmap uses 55 as the age beyond which reforms won't apply.
Now, before I go any further, let me just say at the outset: I agree that we can and should reform entitlements in a way that protects the over-55 population. I hold this view out of a basic sense of equity: we have made the promise of income and health care security for too long to pull the rug out from under our older fellow citizens at this late stage in the game.
I hold that view – in general.
I say “in general” because not everyone who qualifies for Social Security checks or health care benefits should receive them – or at least receive them in full.
Here is the problem our entitlement programs pose for conservatives:
First, conservatives don’t believe in social welfare for those who can take care of themselves. Robert Samuelson recently defended his use of the expression “welfare” to describe Social Security. He’s right to use that word. It is welfare because it involves transferring income from one group to another. Your and my FICA taxes are not stored somewhere in an account for us to draw on when we reach 65. This should be objectionable to conservatives when the transfer is not based on need. According to the Census Bureau, 15 percent of Americans over the age of 65 earn more than $100,000 annually. Surely there’s something wrong about taxing poorer workers to provide for richer seniors.
Second, there is something fundamentally un-conservative about an arrangement that pits generations against one another. Conservatism is rooted more or less in the Burkean notion that we have an obligation to preserve a dynamic social order, based on transcendent principles, not only for our children but for those who haven’t even been born yet. Conservatives frequently object to class warfare; it's time they start objecting more to generational warfare. More than 46 million Americans receive Medicare benefits to the tune of more than half a trillion dollars per year. Now that the baby boomers are moving into eligibility for the program, that number will rise rapidly in coming years. Nearly half of America’s 13.3 million workers 34 and younger earn less than $35,000 annually. If we don’t slow benefit growth for the older group, we will have to confiscate even more from the younger group, which will invariably leave them with a quality of life that is below what their parents enjoyed.
There are two things as a matter of policy that conservatives should embrace. One is straightforward, the other would require a complementary movement within civil society to make it succeed.
First, means-test the benefits. The idea that we scale Medicare and Social Security benefits to income was hardly discussed a few years ago. Now we have lawmakers broaching the topic in public. This is a good thing. It’s an eventuality. We need to accept it, support the idea, and get it into law as soon as possible rather than waiting until the last minute. The longer we wait, the worse the policy will be.
Second, make it easier for wealthier seniors to turn down their benefits. We cannot force those who are eligible for benefits to turn them down. But we should promote the idea and make it easier to act on. What if a large group of America’s wealthier seniors pledged to pay all of their own medical expenses each year up to, say, $50,000? And what if that group could direct their Social Security checks back into a trust fund for those who need the income more than they do? This type of arrangement would not solve our deficit problems going forward, but it would help change the nature of the debate. Right now, the AARP controls the debate by insisting that any departure from the status quo is an offense to the rights of seniors. A resistance movement among affluent conservative seniors would help a lot. Once means-testing is in place, the need for such a movement may be diminished. But we don't know how long it will be before we have full-fledged means-testing, and this would be a great way to accelerate such reform.
Given the nature of our coming fiscal crisis, it’s time for conservatives to be honest and unwavering in our principles – even if it means questioning how we think about our later years.
It will be politically impossible to enact reforms that make any changes to entitlements for people over 55. But that doesn't have to stop an activist group of seniors from demanding more just and creative alternatives.
Comments