Social Security is on the brink of collapse. Tariffs raise prices and cost jobs. The US government and independent policy organizations have disseminated information on the former for years, and the latter has been widely shared in economic literature for decades. And yet, when previous administrations implemented policies that have weakened the retirement scheme or imposed measures that doubled down on tariffs, there has been radio silence among occupants of the Fourth Estate – until now.
Trump Up Social Security
Former President Donald Trump announced this summer that he wants to obliterate taxes on Social Security benefits. While this sounds worthwhile for current retirees, estimates from the Tax Foundation suggest it would trim federal revenues by about $1.2 trillion over the next decade. Additionally, the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget estimate Social Security's trust fund would be drained by 2031 and trigger a 33% cut in benefits by 2035.
Of course, even before the former president’s proposal, projections suggested that the entitlement program’s reserves would be depleted by 2033, initiating an automatic 20% cut in benefits. As Liberty Nation News has reported, Social Security faces a permanent $63 trillion deficit. It is rich that newspapers and the networks are clutching their pearls about the near-century-old program’s solvency challenges.
Here is a breakdown of what some outlets have reported on Trump's Social Security stance:
Axios: “How Trump could make Social Security's fiscal outlook gloomier.”
Newsweek: “Donald Trump's Social Security plan could lead to major cuts, report finds.”
The Hill: “Social Security funds could run out in 6 years under Trump plans: analysis.”
Was there anything about the eternal shortfall or even the 75-year deficit of roughly $20 trillion? Or how about ubiquitous media coverage of the lack of serious policy suggestions from Vice President Kamala Harris to resolve Social Security’s fiscal deterioration? Silence.
The out-of-nowhere pearl-clutching over Social Security is laughable. Suppose news publications are worried about eliminating taxes on benefits. Should they be ignored when the flood of complaints about reforms like raising the eligibility age or adjusting the benefits structure arrives?
Tariff Man Strikes Again
The GOP nominee desires to impose a universal across-the-board 10% tariff and introduce sizable levies on China and corporations exporting jobs. While this is protectionism on steroids, tariffs have been the go-to public policy instrument employed by Democratic and Republican administrations. Liberty Nation News has gone into significant detail, highlighting how many presidents, from George W. Bush to Barack Obama, have instituted tariffs to shield domestic industries from foreign competition, resulting in higher prices and fewer jobs.
What is comical is that the alphabet cable news networks and major newspapers expressed little outrage about this policy under either Obama or President Joe Biden. Here is what they reported:
CNBC in April 2016: "Obama just changed the game for steel."
CNBC in September 2015: "Obama needs to crack down on China."
CNN in September 2009: "Tariff could flatten cheap tires from China."
Indeed, the best CNN article was penned earlier this month: "Ignore the word 'tariff’ – Trump is pitching higher taxes." In contrast, here is what the network reported about Biden’s tariff policies: "Biden calls for a tripling of tariffs on Chinese steel as he makes economic pitch in Pittsburgh," "Both Biden and Trump want higher tariffs. Here’s what voters need to know," and "Biden increases tariffs on $18 billion in Chinese imports in a new warning to Beijing." As you can see, not one title referred to tariffs as taxes, though they are.
Meanwhile, the rest of the establishment press is handwringing about Trump’s tariff pursuits, warning about renewed inflationary pressures and adverse effects on economic growth. Yes, tariffs could rekindle the inflation flame, but these entities thought the current president’s policies would not lead to 40-year high inflation.
Selective Outrage
It will take more than nibbling at the federal budget and producing more crude oil to save Social Security. Likewise, tariffs are not a magical panacea to resuscitate the pre-war days of men in overalls carrying lunch pails to the neighborhood factory. It would not be horrendous if these media giants repeatedly complained about the retirement scheme almost guaranteed to crumble or tariffs hurting the economic landscape. However, only selectively being outraged depending on the letter occupying the White House is a disservice to the real issues.
.jpg&w=1920&q=75)
.jpg&w=1920&q=75)
