The other day Republican Chris Christie advocated cutting Social Security and Medicare benefits “for young people,” trotting out the old and patently wrong argument that the richest country on Earth can no longer afford these programs:
“The most disgusting part of Joe Biden’s State of the Union address this year was when he stood up, and he said, ‘We’ll all agree, right? We’re not going to do anything to Social Security?’ And both sides got up and cheered.
“[They’re] a group of liars and cowards, because they know they know that in 10 years, Medicare will be bankrupt. And in 11 years, Social Security will be bankrupt.”
Obviously, neither program will ever be “bankrupt” and both can exist indefinitely as long as Republicans are not allowed to end them. Initially, Medicare is a general spending program. While Social Security has been financed under artificial accounting as a “trust fund,” that only means (i) Social Security — alone among federal programs — has not contributed one penny to the federal debt (or annual deficits), and (ii) at any point that this trust accounting fiction becomes a problem, we simply can make Social Security a general spending program too.
There are lots of other problems with Christie’s standard Republican propaganda, but I want to focus on one core, top-line point. There is no plausible argument that the current Social Security and Medicare programs are financially out-of-reach when we do not hear any need or call to cut spending on the military industrial complex.
It is that simple. One side of the federal budget (social spending) cannot be going bankrupt, while another huge side of the budget (military spending) is not just financially sound, but increasing every year.
As a plain example that should not be needed: you can’t say that the heat, electric and commuting side of your personal finances are going bankrupt, but the travel, rent and entertainment side of your finances are on solid financial footing, The argument is not just wrong, but idiotic.
At worst, we may force a choice between priorities, or need to bring in more revenue and/or debt.
But if we do face a guns-or-butter choice nationally, this point only becomes more relevant because our military industrial complex spending is not “defense spending,” but “empire spending.” As everyone knows, we are involved in military spending in Ukraine, Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, the Middle East, Latin America, various African countries and so much more, and we are the dominant naval force across all the oceans and major bodies of water. On top, we are the preeminent country in NATO and other organizations, and are the leading nuclear super-power. We spend more on the military than the next seven largest spending countries combined.
This is Empire Spending . . . Britain, Rome, Ottoman stuff. But in 2023 a country cannot be a real empire if it leaves tens of millions of its people without even retirement and health security.
And that is the simple point. You don't need to debate actuarial tables, discretionary vs. entitlement spending, “dedicated taxes,” the national debt, annual deficits, or trust fund accounting principles. When a Republican comes (again) to eliminate these programs, while crying poverty, just point to the military industrial complex budget. And you can even compliment Republican Dwight Eisenhower.
