Zaid Jilani: Why is the press repeating claims the budget proposal doesn’t cut Social Security?

Video: YouTube / The Zero Hour with RJ Eskow

Since unveiling the much-debated 2018 federal budget proposal, our elected officials have faced an onslaught of criticism and questioning regarding deep cuts to Social Security disability (SSDI).

While politicians know well by now most Americans won’t tolerate attempts to cut or reduce Social Security in any context, this budget sticks out particularly hard since it also appears to shatter a key promise made during the Trump campaign not to cut benefits.

The response to this backlash in Washington has been to quietly draw a dividing line between Social Security retirement benefits and…everything else included in Social Security and funded by our payroll taxes.

By persuading Americans to view SSDI and Supplemental Security Income (SSI) as fundamentally different than retirement benefits, it seems our elected officials seek to evade accusations that a promise is broken while encouraging us to see SSDI and SSI as less valuable–and therefore fair game to cut.

If this isn’t bad enough, it also appears as though several major media outlets are joining them to perpetuate these claims.

In a May 23 article for The Intercept, reporter Zaid Jilani pointed to several instances of a major news source cosigning the idea that a cut to SSDI isn’t equivalent to a Social Security cut–and that’s despite “Social Security” being in the name:

• The Hill: “It would not touch Social Security…”
• CBS: “…would leave core Social Security benefits…untouched.”
• Fox: “…without touching Social Security…beyond rooting out fraud.”
• ABC: “…while exempting Social Security and…retirement benefits from cuts.”
• Voice of America: “…follows Trump’s campaign promises not to cut Social Security, a government-run old age pension program…”

As Jilani goes on to note, in the same way supportive politicians wiggle in some breathing room after claiming Social Security isn’t cut by this budget, these statements from the media also frequently feature an asterisk: core benefits suggest SSDI is somehow secondary to retirement, rooting out fraud seems to provide a preemptive excuse for the cuts, and ABC and Voice make a point of using retirement and old age to make subtle distinction.

As more and more embrace the idea that this proposal doesn’t call for “true” Social Security cuts, it’s worth noting again creating this distinction is dangerous.

SSDI and SSI are as much a part of Social Security as traditional retirement benefits. There is no such thing as “core” Social Security benefits. Your benefits are just that: your benefits. The money you’ve contributed to Social Security via the payroll tax funds all three branches of the Social Security Trust Fund–you’ve paid for your SSDI and SSI benefits just the same as your retirement benefits.

And as we’ve mentioned previously, SSDI benefits a large portion of those nearing retirement age. With so many older Americans claiming disability benefits, cuts to SSDI would harm seniors in particular. If a majority of Americans support protecting seniors’ retirement security, no one should accept a budget that slashes disability.

You can read the rest of Jilani’s article right here.