In the mid-90s, Newt Gingrich used to tussle with Dems over whether GOP plans to scale back spending on health care and education amounted to “cuts” or whether he was simply “slowing the rate of growth.” It was a silly debate — when the government spends less than it promises on a program, it’s cutting the program’s budget — but it dominated Republican talking points for years.
And just when we thought we’ve moved past such nonsense, the president hinted yesterday that the debate may be poised for a comeback.
“You know, you hear all this talk about benefit cuts; we’re talking about making sure benefits grow at the rate of inflation — that’s what we’re talking about. You’ve been promised something; it ought to grow at the rate of inflation.”
I’m afraid Bush was serious. His embrace of massive Social Security benefit cuts for middle-income families last week was, to hear the president tell it, just a wild misunderstanding. It’s as if Bush is now saying, “Benefit cuts? What benefit cuts? I don’t see any benefit cuts!”
I’d call this an obvious attempt at deception, but it doesn’t even deserve such a lofty description. For Bush to say that his approach to Social Security doesn’t include benefit cuts is just ridiculous.
In a press conference on April 28, President Bush endorsed a proposal that would result in substantial cuts in benefits for middle-income families and deeper cuts for higher-income families. While the proposal was described as reducing benefits for the most affluent Americans, it would result in large benefit reductions for middle-class workers, as well.
All workers with income above $20,000 today would be subject to benefit reductions. Seven of every ten workers would be affected. (Robert Pozen, the investment executive who designed this proposal, generally describes the cut-off as $25,000, but that is because he is using the expected cut-off in 2012, and expressing in 2012 dollars.)
The benefit reduction for middle-class workers would be large. The size of the benefit reductions would escalate sharply in size as income rose above $20,000, until income reached $90,000. A worker making $35,000 today would be subject to benefit reductions more than half as large as those imposed on people at the highest income levels. A worker making $60,000 today would be subject to benefit reductions more than 85 percent as large as someone making several million dollars a year. For a $60,000-a-year worker who retires in 2045, the benefit cut would equal about $6,500 a year.
Social Security survivor benefits would be cut by the same magnitude.
This is why, according to the president, “you hear all this talk about benefit cuts.”
No wonder GOP senators are backing away quickly. In just the last three days, three high-profile Republicans — Sens. George Allen (Va.), Sam Brownback (Kan.), and Trent Lott (Miss.) — have all indicated their concerns about Bush’s approach.
Ultimately, however, I’m delighted Bush’s new rhetoric insists he’s not going to cut Social Security benefits. It’s not only demonstrably false, it’s an opportunity to discuss this facet of his scheme in more detail.
Bush says he’s not cutting benefits; everyone else says otherwise. Let’s debate it openly and publicly to see who’s right. What do you say, White House? Ready for a national discussion on just how much you want to scale back Social Security benefits?