Latest News
Immigration Emerges in the Social Security Debate (Again)
In an analysis of GOP presidential candidate Trump’s recent remarks about Social Security’s looming financial crisis, The Motley Fool’s Sean Williams cited the candidate’s campaign position on the program as “flawed” and pointed out several fundamental points omitted from its equation. The flaw cited by Williams (and he describes it rightfully as fatal) relates directly to the point that doing nothing to address the financial cliff faced by Social Security beneficiaries in just a few years essentially ensures a catastrophic result for the tens of millions of seniors. Said another way, doing nothing to address the problem–and soon–is a de facto endorsement of a projected 23%-25% reduction in the monthly benefit relied on by these seniors to remain above the federal poverty line. Read the Motley Fool article here.
In explaining the flaw in Candidate Trump’s plan, Williams called attention to the omission of commentary on a few key factors causing Social Security’s deteriorating finances, one of which is the frequently re-occurring argument on the long-term effects of immigration–legal immigration, that is. In a linked article, Williams asserts that “Immigration is a net positive for the traditional Social Security program,” an argument also supported in a post by PolitiFact’s Louis Jacobson who likewise challenges Trump’s assertion that immigration is a detriment to Social Security.
Both Williams and Jacobsen suggest that immigration would be an avenue to improving the worker-to-beneficiary ratio over the long run, helping to bolster Social Security’s revenue stream in the decades ahead. There are, of course, arguments on both sides of the legal immigration issue and its impact on the future of Social Security, and it’s generally accepted that legal immigration alone won’t save Social Security, but the inability to meet the legal immigration projections suggested by Social Security’s trustees does have a negative impact on the solvency issue.