The payroll tax — not the income tax, but the entirely separate payroll tax on workers and employers — is what funds Social Security. When the program’s defenders say Social Security is paid for and does not contribute to the national deficit, they speak the truth. Social Security is fully funded through 2037, and a small, simple adjustment to the payroll tax (applying it to income above $106,000) would ensure its continued health.
But President Obama cut payroll taxes earlier this year and now proposes to cut them again. Defenders of Social Security worry these payroll tax cuts will prove politically impossible to undo, and that resulting losses in funding will eventually force Congress to raid general tax revenues to keep Social Security solvent. The day that happens, defenders warn, is the day Congress and the public will turn on Social Security, calling it a welfare program.
Psst … I got news for you. People already call it a welfare program. My Limbaugh-lovin’ niece in Cape Girardeau, Missouri* posted the following to Facebook last night, sometime during the airing of the Tea Party-sponsored Republic Party** presidential candidates’ debate:
She says we wouldn’t need Social Security if we were raised right, and then equates Social Security recipients with welfare recipients. The welfare theme becomes clearer once she begins to expand on her original post in the comments section:
I think we all recognize the code words, and by golly she sprinkles a lot of them around. Prompted by a sympathetic friend, she makes it clearer yet:
If you asked my niece whether she thinks her grandmother is on Social Security because she didn’t save for the future, or because she grew up in a culture of poverty and dependence, she’d say “Of course not, that isn’t what I meant at all!” She’d say her grandmother contributed to a pension fund all through her working life and has earned every penny she’s now receiving. She’d say the same thing about any middle class retiree on Social Security, including her Uncle Paul in Arizona. She’d say she’s looking forward to the day she begins receiving the Social Security benefits she herself has earned.
So who are these people she’s talking about? The ones who haven’t been taught to save, the ones who are on the dole, the ones who shouldn’t need Social Security because they’re perfectly healthy? Well, if they aren’t the middle class, then they must be the poor … and, judging by the code words, minorities. Who gets welfare? The poor. Minorities.
We all resent the thought that some people are getting a free ride. People on the right are more willing to admit it than people on the left, but it’s true of all of us. That resentment is a powerful undercurrent in American politics. If the Republic Party can turn that resentment against Social Security, they will.
What my niece says? We can expect to hear more of the same. A lot more.
* I often quote my “Limbaugh-lovin’ niece from Cape Girardeau” in these culture war posts. She and Rush are from the same town, and she does, in fact, admire Cape Girardeau’s favorite son. But don’t get the impression I look down on her political and social views. I disagree with her views, but that is a different thing. She’s on the right and I’m on the left and that’s just the way it is. I quote her because she’s an articulate and smart representative for the other side. That she is family means I have a personal stake in these arguments. We are by no means enemies … though I must admit she’s a little upset about this post.
** If they’re gonna call my party the Democrat Party, I’m gonna call them the Republic Party. I’ve had enough of this being-bigger-than-they-are crap.