Cost of Not Reforming Social Security

Subtext refers to that which is never stated explicitly but is nevertheless part of the message. Lately, I have been thinking about how people can blatantly lie as long they lie in subtext instead of actual words. For example, when a certain beverage manufacturer advertises that "Red Bull® gives you wings," what they want you to think is "Caffeine + Sugar = Viagra®." That is subtext, and when the subtext isn't spelled out, it's hard to argue against.

Subtext is also present when people argue against Social Security reform in the United States. As a parent, I have no desire for the next generation to be taxed into subsistence merely to prop up the existing failed system. It is often argued, however, that the transition costs for modernizing Social Security make such a transition too expensive. What certain politicians would like you to think is that it costs nothing to pay off the present unfunded liability to seniors with the current system. That is subtext. When it is spelled out, however, the subtext is easily refuted.

That is why I am excited to have discovered the NOdometer from the Heritage Foundation, and placed it on my sidebar. (I'll bet the Cato Institute is kicking itself for not thinking of this first.) The NOdometer tracks the approximate unfunded liability of the current Social Security system. Not only this number higher than any transition cost you can come up with, it is not included in calculations of the National Debt.