Opinion: Pence’s plan for a ‘better deal’ on Social Security should be a non-starter

Editor’s Note: Dean Obeidallah, a former attorney, is the host of SiriusXM radio’s daily program “The Dean Obeidallah Show.” Follow him @DeanObeidallah@masto.ai. The opinions expressed in this commentary are his own. View more opinion on CNN.

Former Vice President Mike Pence — possibly in preparation for a 2024 presidential run — is telling America he wants to replace Social Security with a “better deal.”

Appearing Thursday on Fox News, Pence laid out his vision to end Social Security as it is currently administered in which all the funds are exclusively invested by the federal government. Instead, Pence proposed altering this program created in 1935 for our nation’s older adults by giving younger people the option “to invest a portion of their Social Security in a private savings account.”

He said the current system should be kept in place for those retiring in the next 20 years, but he declared with no ambiguity, “I think we can replace the New Deal programs with a better deal.” (Social Security was part of a series of programs known as the New Deal that Democratic President Franklin D. Roosevelt pushed through during the Depression.)

Pence ran with former President Donald Trump on the mantle of repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act with “something terrific” — as Trump put it — and he apparently wants to do the same now with Social Security. (As an aside, we are still waiting for that “phenomenal” health care plan Trump promised in 2020 that would be delivered within the next “two weeks.”)

Last week’s Fox News interview was not a slip of the tongue by Pence. Earlier in February, the former vice president made the same pledge in a closed-door meeting with a corporate trade group, the National Association of Wholesaler-Distributors, telling attendees that “we can replace the New Deal with a better deal,” according to video footage obtained by the Democratic-aligned group American Bridge 21st Century. Pence asserted that doing so somehow “could save the government money.” (In actuality, some studies of similar proposals in the past show private accounts would cost the government more money.)

If Pence gets his way, the GOP-controlled House of Representatives would play a central role in drafting sweeping changes to a program that is a lifeline for nearly 67 million Americans who receive monthly benefits — people like my own mother. GOP Reps. Marjorie Taylor Greene, George Santos, Lauren Boebert and others would be involved in drafting and voting on such a policy.

Are these the type of people you trust to protect our nation’s older citizens?

(Pence insisted on Fox that “we have to have a conversation about reforming entitlements in the days ahead,” and Republicans have been playing defense on Social Security and Medicare after Biden called some of them out in his recent State of the Union address.

McCarthy has vowed to take cuts to Social Security and Medicare “off the table” in negotiations over the debt ceiling. And Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell criticized GOP Sen. Rick Scott’s original plan to sunset all federal programs after five years, including Social Security and Medicare, calling it “just a bad idea.” Scott recently added an exemption for Social Security and Medicare to his plan after much criticism. Trump has warned Republicans not to make any cuts to Social Security and Medicare.)

If Pence’s idea of allowing people to invest their Social Security tax dollars in a private account sounds familiar, it should. In 2005, then-President George W. Bush proposed a similar idea, saying in his State of the Union address: “As we fix Social Security, we also have the responsibility to make the system a better deal for younger workers. And the best way to reach that goal is through voluntary personal retirement accounts.”

Bush sought to build support for this idea by traveling the nation. But he was confronted with a strong backlash from groups such as AARP that ran ads featuring a middle-aged couple saying, “If we feel like gambling, we’ll play the slots.”

Bush’s approval ratings on Social Security soon began to plummet. In January 2005, a Washington Post/ABC poll found that as Bush kicked off his campaign, 55% of respondents disapproved of his handling of Social Security. By that April, that number had jumped to 64%. Bush’s plan to overhaul the program ultimately failed to gain traction.

In 1934, with an eye toward the Social Security legislation, Roosevelt noted the stark world facing many older Americans then: “Old age is at once the most certain, and for many people the most tragic of all hazards,” he said. “There is no tragedy in growing old, but there is tragedy in growing old without means of support.” We can’t go back to that reality.

Beginning in 2035, Social Security will only be able to pay 77% of benefits unless there is some congressional action. Having a good faith discussion on robustly funding the program — such as lifting the cap on earnings subject to Social Security tax from the current rate of $160,200 to all income — is needed.

But recycling old, bad ideas such as the one Pence is peddling should be a non-starter — especially given the composition of the House GOP that would be involved in crafting such legislation. All Americans deserve the right to age with dignity and not have political games played with their golden years.