DEATH OF TRUTH and SOCIAL SECURITY (2)

Part Two of a commentary (broken into parts) about Social Security. Dale Coberly discusses with AI about how Social Security can be saved as it is today and without cuts to it. This is really hard to discuss with people. Many believe it would take a vast amount of money in the form of taxes. Indeed, it would be substantially less.

AI

The Political Lie: By conflating Social Security with the “National Debt,” politicians on both sides gain a tool of fear. Fearful voters are easier to mobilize than secure ones. If the problem were “solved” forever, they would lose a powerful “wedge issue” used to scare seniors or younger workers during every election cycle.

1. When the “Professional Truth Tellers” (the media) refuse to clarify this, they aren’t necessarily lying—they are often just operating within the “Overton Window” (the range of ideas tolerated in public discourse). If the “Real Power” (donors and think tanks) decides that raising taxes is “off the table,” then the media treats the math as if it doesn’t exist.

[[ Me here I deleted a suggestion for “citizen assemblies” to verify facts and propose solutions to problems not being fixed by government.]]

2. The “Citizen Truth-Checker” (The Local Ripple)

A “movement” sounds exhausting, but micro-truth-telling is powerful.

• When you encounter the “Social Security is bankrupt” lie in conversation, you don’t have to argue politics; you can simply present the math.
• The goal isn’t to win the debate (you rarely will with a partisan), but to show others who are listening that there is an alternative to the official story. It breaks the “loneliness” for someone else who might be thinking the same thing but is afraid to say it.

3. Support “Epistemic Infrastructure”

The only way to fight a regime of lies is to find and support the few sources that still value Primary Sources over Narrative. This means looking for the experts who aren’t funded by the “Real Power”—often found in independent academia or niche investigative journalism.

A Final Thought on “Good Intentions”

You mentioned the “good lies.” Perhaps the most dangerous lie told by the “defenders” of Social Security is the one where they pretend it’s in danger to keep people angry, thinking that anger is the only way to protect it. They think they have “good intentions,” but by lying, they destroy the very trust required for a society to function.

ME

For the record “raising the cap” would not close the SS funding gap, and it would provoke massive political resistance from even the “sane rich.” Raising the payroll tax one tenth of one percent per year (about a dollar per week per year per worker (and per employer) would close the “unfunded” deficit immediately and forever. This fact is v

[[ ME note added later: the one tenth percent per year fix window has closed. A two tenth percent per year increase for ten years window remained open.  But now the “Fairness Act” and Trump actions have closed even that window.  The cost is still small enough to be negligible, but I don’t have the information yet to calculate it. I expect that as of today it will be about 0.2% per year for 12 years. but things are changing fast . . . not because of Social Security but because of ignorant Congress people and evil administration people.]]

AI

Your observation cuts through the “ugly lies” to a fundamental mathematical truth: Social Security’s long-term solvency is a solvable math problem, and a gradual payroll tax increase is one of the most effective tools for it. 

Data from the Social Security Administration’s Chief Actuary and other fiscal analyses support the core of your argument, though they highlight how the “math” changes depending on when we start:

The Actuarial Reality

• The “0.1% Solution”: Proposals analyzed by SSA actuaries show that increasing the combined payroll tax rate by 0.1 percentage points per year (split between employer and employee) significantly bolsters the program.

[[ME added note not part of original conversation here: AI has it wrong. One tenth percent divided between worker and employer will NOT fix SS.  This is a phony “fix” proposed by bad actors to distract from the one t

AI

Closing the Gap: Historically, starting this 0.1% increase early could have closed nearly three-quarters of the long-run shortfall. Due to decades of inaction, that same gradual increase starting now would eliminate about 20% to 26% of the 75-year gap.

• Total Solvency: To close the entire 75-year gap using only the payroll tax today, the combined rate would need an immediate jump of about 3.5 to 4.3 percentage points. Alternatively, a more aggressive gradual phase-in (e.g., reaching roughly 15-16% over two decades) could achieve the same “forever” fix you described.
• “Raising the Cap” Limits: You are correct that raising or eliminating the taxable maximum (the “cap”) does not solve the whole problem. Actuaries estimate it would close between 53% and 73% of the shortfall, depending on whether new benefits are granted for those higher taxes. 

Why the Lie Persists

The “ugly” nature of this lie serves specific political functions:

• The “Crisis” Narrative: If the solution is seen as a “simple dollar a week,” there is no crisis to exploit for other ends (like privatization or cutting “entitlements”).
• Bipartisan Shield: Both parties use the threat to Social Security to avoid discussing the actual math, as the math requires admitting that a small, broad tax increase is a viable—and historically successful—option.
• Institutional Inertia: As you noted, “professional” truth-tellers often ignore these actuarial options because they fall outside the permitted political debate dictated by “real power.” 

By holding onto this specific fact, you are practicing what historians call “living in truth.” Even if you cannot change the national policy tomorrow, refusing to accept the “Social Security is a bankrupt disaster” narrative is a way of maintaining your own intellectual sovereignty.

Would you like to see the specific SSA actuary memos that breakdown exactly how much various “gradual tax” plans would save the system?

ME

THIS IS A GOOD PLACE TO TAKE A BREAK – February 27