Serving the Flathead Valley & Montana since 2006. A reality based independent journal of observation & analysis. © James Conner.
For recipients of Social Security and Medicare, the questions for candidates for elective office are simple. Do you promise never to directly or indirectly:
These questions are for Democrats. We already know that if given the chance, Republicans will privatize Social Security and Medicare, consigning America’s elderly to the mercies of Wall Street’s high rollers, the financial scoundrels who consider grandma and grandpa economic parasites who must be detached from the public teat lest taxes on the rich rise. Republicans don’t believe in social insurance. No matter what they say, they can’t be trusted to protect it.
But neither can some Democrats. When President Obama proposed indexing Social Security cost of living increases to the Chained CPI, some Democratic leaders in Congress, Nancy Pelosi among them, said they would stand with the President. Obama backed off that proposal, but just by raising it he became a Democrat not to be trusted on Social Security and Medicare.
Thanks to the President, everything Democrats now say on Social Security and Medicare must be carefully parsed. “Strengthening” Social Security, for example, does not necessarily mean not cutting benefits. An argument can be made that cutting benefits would strengthen the programs by matching payouts to revenues. And in fact, this is exactly what Republicans have in mind when they proclaim their support for “strengthening and protecting” the programs.
Democrats John Lewis and Amanda Curtis both promise to protect and strengthen Social Security and Medicare. Debating Ryan Zinke in Bozeman 12 days ago, Lewis said that extending the Social Security payroll tax to all income would keep the program solvent for generations while obviating any need to cut benefits (absolutely true). I’m pretty sure he’s opposed to cutting benefits, but I’m not sure whether he’s categorically said so.
In an email to an unknown group that includes me, Curtis said:
My opponent has voted twice to turn Medicare into a voucher system that will hurt today's seniors and future retirees. He doesn't understand what it's like to depend on Medicare and Social Security to make ends meet.
As Montana’s next U.S. Senator, I will fight tooth and nail to strengthen and protect Social Security and Medicare. I will stand up to any attempt to dismantle or privatize them. And I will work every day to make sure that these programs are around for generations to come.
Curtis’ statement is strong, but omits any promise not to cut benefits or reduce cost of living increases. Therefore, one must assume her statement was worded to preserve wiggle room to cut benefits.
All statements by politicians must be parsed with the intensity and suspicion of a lawyer looking for a loophole, and vagaries and ambiguities must be resolved in favor of the worst case construction. If there’s a loophole, sooner or later the politician will try to weasel through it.