The election between Democrat Mark Udall and Republican Cory Gardner assures the voters of Colorado two things: There will be one winner and millions of losers. Every man, woman, and child in the state who has an interest in the future of Social Security will lose no matter which candidate wins.
Social Security should be a serious issue. Unfortunately today, it isn’t in the race for Senate in Colorado. Neither candidate has developed a coherent position on the issue. What little that was said about the system is at best verbal gerrymandering and at worst factually inaccurate. The voters of Colorado deserve better.
Welcome to the politics of delay. In this strategy, candidates tell you everything that they will not do, but nothing about what they would do. They attack the flaws in the opponent’s plan, while making a painstaking effort to avoid any position of their own. The politicians reason that if we deny that there is a problem long enough, no one will notice.
This strategy was put on full display in the debates at Grand Junction. About 20 minutes into the debate, the question was: “How would you protect Social Security for today’s seniors, and strengthen it for future generations?” This is a reasonable question considering that someone turning 66 today on average expects to outlive full benefits in Social Security — and that is in a good economy.
Instead of facts and figures on a system vital to the voters of Colorado, the candidates provided three minutes of evasion. Neither candidate even acknowledged that there is a problem in Social Security. Both candidates focused more on Medicare and Obamacare. While these issues are important, they are completely unrelated to the question.
Gardner suggested that we could protect the system by “making sure that Washington, D.C., quits borrowing against the people who paid into Social Security.” The fact is that Washington hasn’t been able to borrow against Social Security since 2009 because the system does not any excess cash for anyone to borrow. So how has the Gardner plan worked? Since 2008, the hole in the system’s finances has nearly quadrupled.
The challenges in Social Security are imminent and large. The disability system is projected to reach insolvency before the next election cycle. In 2013, the unfunded liabilities of the system grew by $1.8 trillion, more than double what the system collected in all forms of revenue. The voters deserve an answer.
Instead of talking about actual problems, both candidates lowered the level of the debate to the fear-mongering of imaginary hobgoblins. Udall has told voters that he opposes privatization, the threat of which exists mainly on Democratic websites. Gardner said in the debate that he would “stop Washington from raiding the system.” The Social Security Administration officially recognizes the raid on the trust funds as urban legend.
Outside the debate, both candidates have meticulously avoided any substantial position on the issue. Udall has invested more time and energy in attacking the flaws in Gardener’s position than developing his own. He falsely claims that Gardner would “change the way Social Security operates” (minute 23:10). He accused Gardner of wanting to privatize Social Security. Udall claims that Gardner voted to “gut Social Security.”
What makes Udall’s claims completely absurd is that Gardener has managed to get elected twice without creating any lasting imprint on the issue. Voter guides like AARP, VoteSmart and OnTheIssues cannot find his position. Google can’t find it. Gardner’s campaign website does not list Social Security as an issue. Social Security is not listed on his site as an issue.
The candidates’ positions — or lack thereof — illustrate the political calculus of addressing the program’s looming insolvency. You can’t mention the problem without mentioning some type of solution. Any solution will contain some unpalatable parts ensured to alienate some segment of voters. So the politicians send the message that system’s benefits without any consideration to the cost of keeping their promises.
At this point, current law does not protect existing retirees, much less those approaching retirement. It should not be enough to say that you will protect seniors. Someone needs to explain how.
Brenton Smith is founder of Fix Social Security Now, which provides information on all alternatives in the public debate on Social Security through its website .
