Americans of all ages face a crushing affordability crisis. Rather than blame the billionaire class and their political servants – or wealth inequality in general – conservatives have continued trying to pit the generations against each other.
Look no further than this week’s misleading op-ed in the Los Angeles Times,The Financial Engine Behind Millennial and Gen Z Malaise. This is only the latest in a gaggle of mainstream media pieces blaming younger adults’ economic struggles on older people – otherwise known as the “greedy geezer” myth.
These screeds barely ever mention that the rising cost of college tuition, mounting student debt, and unaffordable housing could be mitigated by more progressive federal policies that favor everyday people instead of financial elites. See: almost every other Western-style democracy. Instead, it’s all supposedly older people’s fault.
“Medicare programs are paying for golf balls, greens fees, social club memberships, horseback riding lessons, and pet food,” writes columnist Veronique de Rugy of the right-leaning Mercatus Center at George Mason University.
In reality, Medicare covers medically necessary services like doctor visits, hospital stays, and preventive care… not luxury goods. Far from living in luxury, most seniors are reliant on Social Security to cover some or all of their living expenses. In fact, without Social Security, some 40% of seniors would fall into poverty!
Conservative think tanks are trying awfully hard to divide the generations
The Mercatus-authored piece also mirrors Koch-funded groups like the American Enterprise Institute (AEI) by claiming that retirees are receiving “37% more in Social Security benefits than they paid in (payroll) taxes.”
This statement completely ignores the true nature of Social Security. It was never designed to be an investment program or to generate profits for contributors, nor was it designed to pay out only as much as a worker contributed.
“Social Security is social insurance and like any insurance program, it spreads risk among those who contribute. If you have home insurance, you don’t expect to get your premiums back if your house doesn’t burn down, but you do expect to collect much more than you contributed if disaster strikes.” – Maria Freese, NCPSSM senior Social Security policy expert
With Social Security, you contribute during your working years so you have a source of income if you become disabled, your family is protected if you die, and you can maintain some level of standard of living if you are fortunate enough to enjoy a long life. Once you qualify for benefits, they last as long as you live – benefits don’t stop at an arbitrary number tied to your contributions.
What’s more, Social Security benefits are progressively structured — meaning lower-income seniors receive higher proportional benefits than their wealthier counterparts.
Meanwhile, the op-ed makes the claim that Social Security is the “biggest driver of our government debt.” This is another conservative trope. Social Security is self-funded and does not contribute to debt. (The program also is legally barred from borrowing money.) As conservative hero Ronald Reagan himself said, “Social Security has nothing to do with the deficit.”
President Reagan acknowledged that Social Security does not contribute to the federal debt
In fact, the biggest driver of federal debt is ‘tax expenditures’ — windfalls for the wealthy like the Trump/GOP tax cuts, which added some $3 trillion in red ink. Conservatives don’t seem to mind debt if it’s driven by tax breaks for the rich.
The L.A. Times piece also misleads readers with a “gotcha,” using the basic economic reality that Americans generally are worth more at the end of their lives than they are at the beginning or middle:
“American heads of households younger than 35 now have a median net worth of about $39,000 and an average net worth of more than $183,000`. Those over age 75 have a median net worth of roughly $335,000 and an average net worth exceeding $1.6 million.” – Veronique de Rugy, L.A. Times
Typically, Americans have built up wealth over their lifetimes as they save for retirement or pay off their home mortgages. And until recently, each generation tended to be wealthier than the ones before it. However, thanks to regressive economic policies, that trend has now been reversed.
Conservative narratives seem designed to pave the way for benefit cuts and privatization of Social Security. Although the Times op-ed does not explicitly mention means testing Social Security and Medicare – which would fundamentally alter these programs – the author strongly hints at it:
“Treating every elderly person, no matter how well-off, as a member of a protected class entitled to increasingly unaffordable benefits will eventually destroy a system that progressives in particular cherish.” – Veronique de Rugy, L.A. Times
These social insurance programs are earned benefits based (in part) on lifetime payroll contributions. They are not a ‘handout’ to seniors, people with disabilities, or their families. Implementing means-testing breaks this decades-long compact with workers, and would disproportionately target modest earners making $50,000-$70,000 annually.
This is all part of a broader, well-funded effort to turn generations against each other and soften the ground for degrading Social Security and Medicare. Framing seniors as “greedy geezers” living large on “boomer luxury communism” is designed to distract from the real culprits behind our affordability crisis.