Debate watchers predicted last night’s Vice Presidential debate might put policy above personality (for a change) and to some degree that happened. For starters, the words Social Security and Medicare were finally uttered by participants. That’s progress given that millions of average Americans and their families depend on these programs, plus the fact that the candidates’ records couldn’t be more different. The discussion itself; however, certainly wasn’t very deep. Here is the exchange.
There are a couple key points here. Mike Pence absolutely refused to acknowledge or address in any way his record as one of Congress’ leading supporters of privatization. As we reported earlier, when Pence was in the House he supported a privatization scheme that was even more draconian than the failed effort by President Bush. Even after the President admitted defeat, Pence continued to push for the privatization of Social Security. But Pence’s dodge and deflect skills were in full force last night:
KAINE: But — but you have a voting record, Governor.
PENCE: And I get all of that. I just, look…
PENCE: There’s a question that you asked a little bit earlier that I want to go back to.
KAINE: I can’t believe that you won’t defend your own voting record.
PENCE: I have to go back to.
PENCE: Well, look, I — you’re running with Hillary Clinton, who wants to raise taxes by $1 trillion, increase spending by $2 trillion, and you say you’re going to keep the promises of Social Security. Donald Trump and I are going to cut taxes. We’re going to — we’re going to — we’re going to…
KAINE: You’re not going to cut taxes. You’re going to raise taxes on the middle class.
PENCE: … reform government programs so we can meet the obligations of Social Security and Medicare.
Republican talking points have long required that candidates use “reform” when they mean cut, and “protect” when they mean privatize. The promise to protect current seniors’ benefits is also a poll-tested strategy designed to misdirect attention away from plans to cut benefits for future generations. This “greedy geezer” approach assumes seniors only care about their own benefits, not their children and grandchildren’s.
“The purest articulation of intergenerational warfare as a wedge to break up Social Security’s political coalition is a 1983 paper published by the libertarian Cato Journal. It was titled “Achieving a ‘Leninist’ Strategy,” an allusion to the Bolshevik leader’s supposed ideas about dividing and weakening his political adversaries.
The paper advocated making a commitment to honor Social Security’s commitment to the retired and near-retired as a tool to “detach, or at least neutralize” them as opponents of privatization or other changes. Meanwhile, doubts among the young about the survival of the program should be exploited so they could be “organized behind the private alternative.”
So when you hear a politician promising to exempt the retired and near retired from changes to Social Security, while offering to make it more “secure” for future generations, you now know the game plan.”…Los Angeles Times, 2012
Senator Tim Kaine was right to try and force some clarity from the Trump/Pence campaign on their specific plans for the nation’s most effective retirement and health security programs because, in a nutshell, the Donald Trump of this campaign does not resemble the “Social-Security- is-a-Ponzi scheme” Donald Trump of any other year. Why, is not really mystery as Trump 2.0 himself has said:
“As Republicans, if you think you are going to change very substantially for the worse Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security in any substantial way, and at the same time you think you are going to win elections, it just really is not going to happen” …Trump at 2013 Conservative Political Action Conference
Hopefully, last night’s VP debate won’t be our only chance to hear the Presidential campaigns address Social Security and Medicare. American voters deserve to hear specifics about what these candidates have done and said…not just what they promise they’ll do.