This election, trust the candidate that dares to touch Social Security
There's a reason most campaigns treat Social Security like a live grenade. Touch it and you lose a voting bloc. The piece makes a fair point that a candidate who swears off both benefit cuts and tax increases is promising something that doesn't add up, given the program's projected shortfall. Such a promise is arithmetic avoidance.
Still, I'd want to know what "daring to touch" actually looks like in practice. Raising the payroll tax cap and trimming benefits for higher earners are both on the table, but they carry very different political weights. Voters deserve specifics, not just a willingness to open the conversation.
The bigger question is whether honesty pays at the ballot box. History suggests voters punish candidates who name the problem, even when those same voters say they want fiscal responsibility. So I land somewhere in the middle: the column is right that dodging is misleading, but I'm not convinced the electorate is ready to reward the candidate who tells the hard truth.