Corporate Media Is Still Lying To Us About Social Security

You may think my title for this post is an exaggeration, but it's not. When is the last time you have heard on any of the major (corporate-owned) news networks that Social Security works, is not going "bankrupt", and could be easily fixed with cutting benefits or raising the retirement age? I would be very surprised if you could remember any instance at all of that reporting, and yet it is the truth about Social Security.

The latest bout of lying about Social Security comes from a network generally regarded as being friendly to progressive ideas -- MSNBC. But while MSNBC does have some progressive hosts (Rachel Maddow, Ed Schultz, etc), it is also corporate-owned and that mega-corporation makes sure its own views get aired. And the latest water-carrier for the corporations is Abigail "Abby" Huntsman, who was born into great wealth as the daughter of rich Republican presidential candidate Jon Huntsman.

Huntsman is the co-host of The Cycle on MSNBC, and since she will never have to depend on Social Security for her own existence in her old age, she finds it easy to attack Social Security -- which she did last week, telling the same old corporate and Republican lies about the program (which they have always opposed).

Talking to young people, and attempting to scare them into helping to destroy the program many of them will have to depend on in their old age, she passed on several outright lies -- that people live 20 years longer than they did when Social Security was established, that this would exacerbate the problems of Social Security which is already going bankrupt, and that there are only two solutions to solving Social Security's problems (cutting benefits and raising the retirement age).

Huntsman's pronouncement that people now live 20 years longer makes it sound like people will be getting Social Security for an additional 20 years now -- and that is just not true. That increase in a person birth to death life span is mainly due to a big decrease in the infant mortality rate (and since fewer infant deaths are averaged into the life span, it increases the life span overall). But that has nothing to do with the number of years people are getting Social Security. The number of years a social security recipient is expected to live has not grown nearly as much as she implies -- but has only increased from 77 to 83 for males, and from 78 to 85 for females (far less than 20 years).

Obviously, that does not make a serious difference in the survival of Social Security, especially since the creators expect this increase and have accounted for it. The second lie is one that Republicans have been saying for years -- that the program is going bankrupt. She even made the statement that nothing would be left when people her age retired (she is 27). That is not just a misrepresentation of facts (as the people are living longer argument was) -- it is an outrageous and outright LIE.

Social Security is not going bankrupt (broke), and can't do that since as long as people work in this country there will be money flowing into the program. The fact is that Social Security can pay out full benefits for at least another twenty years, and after that could continue to pay out 70%-80% of full benefits -- and that's if nothing at all is done. Obviously some minor adjustments need to be made since we would like for the program to pay 100% benefits far into the future -- but that is a long way from a program going "broke" or "bankrupt".

But the most outrageous lie of all was her assertion that there are only two things that could "fix" Social Security -- either cut the benefits going to recipients or raise the age at which a person qualifies for benefits (or both). She conveniently overlooks the easiest and best fix for Social Security (and one that would not affect poor and middle class workers at all) -- raising or eliminating the cap of the amount of income subject to FICA taxes.

Currently employees pay a "payroll" (FICA) tax of about 6.2%, and their employer pays an equal amount. But there is a cap on the amount of money taxed. This means while the poor and middle class workers pay the full 6.2% on the money they earn, those making a lot more are only taxed on a small portion of their income -- the first $113,700 of their income, and everything they make over that is tax-free. For instance, someone making less than $113,700 a year would pay 6.2% of their salary into the Social Security Trust Fund, while someone making $1,000,000 a year would pay only 0.007% of their salary or income into the SSTF.

In other words, the rich are basically getting a free ride as far as FICA taxes are concerned. Does it seem fair to you that a minimum wage worker, who already is working for a poverty-level wage, will pay 6.2% of his/her income in FICA taxes while someone making a million dollars a year pays only 0.007%? Raising the income cap, or eliminating it altogether, would fully fund Social Security far into the future -- and it would doing it without hurting Americans who are already struggling to get by.

I can understand why Huntsman doesn't mind hurting or destroying Social Security. She'll never need it to survive. But millions of other Americans do need it to survive, and millions more will need it in the future. These are the people that would be seriously hurt by raising the retirement age or by cutting benefits (with the current average benefit being only slightly above $1000 a month). It is inexcusable to even consider either of these "fixes", since that would just hurt millions of our society's most vulnerable people.

Why won't the major media outlets tell the truth about Social Security? Greed. They are all owned by giant corporations -- corporations that don't want to pay more in FICA taxes for their CEO's and other management. And those corporations are owned and operated by rich people -- who also don't want to pay their fair share in FICA taxes. They would rather hurt those who depend on Social Security to exist than pay the same tax rate that a minimum wage worker pays.

That's shameful, but it's true. Instead of fulfilling their traditional mission to tell the truth, the corporate-owned media now just parrots the policies favored by the rich and the corporations.