I get it. They are tired. And it’s hard to call for more aggression.
But still, there is no excuse for the inadequate reporting by major news organizations on Donald Trump’s announcement on Saturday night that he wants to permanently eliminate the tax services that fund Social Security and Medicare.
The Social Security subsidy from the taxman would drain the money or, at best, make it the subject of the year-to-year political rage and gamesmanship of Congress and the president.
For defenders of the social safety net, Trump’s call was clearly an act of war.
And you might think that political reporters would take remarks when a president grabs both hands with what is historically called the ‘third track of American politics. ‘
But for our major news organizations, it was just another day in Trumpland.
Among several other actions, Trump released a memo on Saturday (not an executive order) calling for a four-month deferral of tax cuts in early September. He also explained: “If I win on November 3, I plan to forgive these taxes and make permanent cuts to the taxman. So I will make them all permanent.”
In Monday’s Washington Post, Tony Romm, Erica Werner and Jeff Stein endorsed Trump’s promise, writing that his sole purpose was to “make the deferred payments into a permanent tax cut.”
It was not until the end of her article that she indicated that more could be at stake:
Historic retirement benefits are sacred in U.S. politics, and Trump’s mere suggestion that he can seek permanent reforms in the way they are funded has led to immediate concerns that it could lead to lasting changes to the monthly checks paid to seniors.
The Associated Press notes emphatically that Trump “raised the possibility of making [the payroll tax deferral] permanently, although experts said he did not miss that authority. “
And there was nothing on the front page of the New York Times on Sunday or Monday to suggest any cause for alarm.
Where is the shame?
You know what all the journalists Trump treats for big news organizations have in common? They are unflappable.
Like that’s a good thing.
Trump says something, they write it down. Perhaps in a few weeks’ time it will become conventional wisdom that Trump’s promise to reduce the tax rate was a boon, an act of impulsiveness and malice and madness, a gift to his grieving friends. But for now, the news stories do not tell you what you need to know.
For that, you have to turn somewhere else, as is so often the case these days: specifically, to the opinion writers.
Business columnist Michael Hiltzik of the Los Angeles Times teased Monday with anger: “Make no mistake: He’s talking about bankrupting Social Security.”
Hiltzik went through:
This mandate, along with remarks made by Trump at the signing ceremony, poses a deadly threat to the 64 million Americans currently receiving Social Security benefits and the hundreds of millions more who will benefit in coming decades.
William J. Arnone, CEO of the National Academy of Social Security, told Hiltzik: “This is all a very well thought out campaign to undermine Social Security and Medicare.”
And Hiltzik pointed to the step Trump was taking when he announced that Democrats “will have the option to increase everyone’s taxes and take it away”:
In other words, he offers voters a bribe – in fact, “choose them and you will have to pay what you owe; choose me and you will get a pass.”
Washington Post business columnist Allan Sloan wrote that Trump’s proposal only makes sense “if it is to undermine Social Security and call for class and generational fighting”:
Step back and look at the big picture – and listen to Trump say he will eliminate Social Security taxes next year, should he be re-elected – and you realize that if Trump takes precedence, it would probably mean the end of Social Security, as we knew it.
The net effect, Sloan wrote, is “to undermine Social Security by turning it into just another federal spending program instead of a program funded by a dedicated tax credit and a $ 3 trillion trust fund.” He explained that “having Social Security financed from general tax revenues would make it very vulnerable to political and financial pressures.”
New York Times opinion writer Paul Krugman did not write a column on the subject, but he posted what may be the most memorable, striking tweet on the whole idea:
Democratic leaders made grip on what Trump said, without fail. Presumptive Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden said in a statement on Saturday. “He puts Social Security at serious risk at a time when seniors are facing the overwhelming consequences of a pandemic he has no control over. And make no mistake: Donald Trump said today that if he is re-elected, he will defuse Social Security. safely. “
A one-man war
Trump’s proposed tax cuts had just nowhere to be found in Congress, where neither Democrats nor Republicans have voiced their support for the idea.
Despite Trump’s delusional Saturday that “everyone wants it”, his only champions – surprise – appear to be the same people who have been trying to destroy Social Security for decades, albeit because they think it’s too expensive and will lead to higher taxes on time, or because they would rather Wall Street get a cut, than both.
It also has nothing to do with responding to the COVID-19 crisis. Trump has been talking about a payroll tax cut since 2017. He told Fox News’ Sean Hannity in early April of this year: “I would like the taxman to cut back, despite this problem we just have – that just happened recently. “
And as Hiltzik (and others) have repeatedly pointed out, tax cuts do nothing for those who are out of work, because they are not on the payroll.
But Trump’s plot is still memorable. In the short term, it is a bribe for the middle class, for which his Democratic successor will have to take the political hit before taking it up again.
In the long run, even if funding is miraculously restored – “we will reimburse the Medicare and Social Security programs through the general funds,” Trump said breezily on Sunday – such a move would change the essential nature of Social Security.
The fact that workers “pay” the system has always been important, giving them a sense of ownership. At the same time, those dollars fund a program that is far more humane and progressive than I could have imagined that any modern Congress would reliably support on an annual basis.
Today, Social Security provides benefits to some 63 million Americans, not only to retired workers but also to married couples and dependents of workers who die prematurely, and to disabled people and their dependents.
And it’s about massive subsidies – not just from the next generation of pensioners to this one, but from single workers to married couples, from two-earner-married couples to one-earner-married couples, from high-income earners to low, from state body to disabled people, and from those who die early to those who die late. (I’m writing here about the 1999 Social Security special report I wrote for the Washington Post.)
It is a beautiful, endearing program that is central to the modern American experience. The fact that Trump is trying to undermine it should arouse massive indignation in even the most unlappable of us.
