It doesn’t get any better than this. Chris Christie unveiled his entitlement reform plan this week. First, he wants to means test Social Security and Medicare. Second, the earliest age at which one could start taking Social Security would be raised from 62 to 64, with the full retirement age being raised to 69. Medicare eligibility would also be raised to 69. Third, to make sure that people who want to retire earlier don’t simply apply for disability, Christie would make workers create a rehabilitation plan. Fourth, he wants to “simplify” Medicaid so that states would receive fixed amounts per enrollee. All of this would be phased in gradually, with Christie promising that his proposals “would not affect seniors currently in these programs or seniors approaching retirement.”
It will not be necessary to belabor the objectionable elements of his plan, so only a few brief remarks will suffice. First, means testing will change Social Security and Medicare from being entitlements to being welfare, bestowing upon them a taint that paves the way for even greater cuts in the future. Second, we may be living longer, but we still suffer the effects of aging, making it difficult or impossible to keep working, and putting us in greater need of medical care. Third, because of the debilitating effects of aging, many people would be forced to apply for disability in lieu of getting regular benefits, but that avenue would be blocked with tighter restrictions. Fourth, when Christie says he wants to “simplify” Medicaid, he means he wants to cut it, just as when Republicans say they want to simplify the tax code, they mean they want to cut taxes. I guess the idea is that it is simpler to pay less money than it is to pay more.
As for the assurance that those of us who are currently in these programs or are approaching retirement will not be affected, that is supposed to appeal to our selfishness. Unlike the means-testing proposal, which at least supposes only that we do not care about the rich, this assurance that present seniors will not be affected supposes that we don’t care about others at all; for it is sure to be a hardship on others in the future, though they be old, sick, and poor.
One thing conservatives have a hard time understanding is just how much some of us care about others besides ourselves. They would bristle if we accused them of being selfish. They would tell us about how much they tithe, about their contributions to charities, and about the various ways in which they help others. And yet, they assume that as long as we seniors have our benefits locked in, we will turn our backs on those who will someday be old too, and just as much in need of financial and medical support as we presently are. For all their pharisaical displays of generosity, conservatives reveal the selfishness that is deep in their hearts when they assume that we liberals can be persuaded to deprive others as long as we still have ours.
That there is a lot of selfishness in the electorate cannot be denied; otherwise a solution to the projected entitlement shortfalls would have long ago been solved with tax increases. A lifting of the cap on that portion of income that is subject to the payroll tax, along with a slight increase in the payroll tax itself, would take care of Social Security and Medicare; and an increase in the income tax would pay for the future needs of Medicaid. But even Democrats will make such proposals only with reluctance, for fear of incurring the wrath of the electorate. That is why, during one of the 2008 primary debates, Hillary Clinton, when asked what she would do about Social Security, dodged the question by saying that everything would be on the table when she negotiated with Congress. She is no more forthcoming on the subject today than she was then.
And this brings to me to the reason why I welcome Chris Christie’s announcement of his proposals for entitlement reform. He has decided to put his face on the poster for benefit cuts, and what a face it is. If Jeb Bush had put forth this plan, his moderate tone and polite manner might make it appear more reasonable and less threatening than it is. But of all the contenders for the Republican nomination, there is no one I would rather have than Chris Christie as the champion of entitlement reform, for all that we find loathsome and repulsive about Christie will seep into his proposals, fouling them with his personality.
From a strictly logical point of view, such reasoning ought to be abjured. The well-known informal fallacy of argumentum ad hominem consists of condemning an argument on account of the character of the person who advances it. But what it lacks in sound reasoning, it excels in persuasion. And though we have sufficient grounds for rejecting Christie’s plan on the basis of logical reasons alone, yet his offensive manner will also provide the electorate with visceral reasons for deploring such proposals.
Right now, every other candidate for the Republican nomination is probably groaning to himself, wishing Christie had not brought the subject up so soon in the campaign season and with such clarity. Every one of them will now be asked, either informally or in a debate, whether he thinks the retirement age should be raised, and each will find it difficult to answer in vague terms when Christie has taken such an unequivocal stand on the issue. Unless the other candidates explicitly renounce such reforms, there will be the suspicion that they are for them, but are simply afraid to say so.
Even Hillary Clinton will not escape unscathed. I fully expect her to try to give a mealy-mouthed answer, as she always has, but someone like Martin O’Malley will be pleased to state his opposition to cutting benefits, much to Hillary’s discomfort. Even if Christie is not the nominee, regardless of whomever Hillary faces in a debate next year, this issue, thanks to Christie, may be one on which each candidate will be forced to take a definite position. And owing to the odium that Christie will by then have infused into his entitlement reforms, the greater the likelihood is that the candidates will want to distance themselves from them.
For the moment, Christie is trying really hard to play nice. He may be taking a bold position on entitlements, but he hopes to present himself as a kinder, gentler candidate. He can’t keep that up for long. We can all fake it for a little while, but just as the longer two people date, the more will each one’s true personality reveal itself, so too will a long campaign eventually cause the real Chris Christie to burst forth in all his obnoxious glory. The general electorate will be repulsed, and they will reject him. And when he goes, his reforms will go with him.
Thank you, Chris Christie.