In the wake of the recent election, Social Security benefits have come under fire. While this has increased the discourse regarding Social Security Disability policy itself, which is a good thing, it has also put a target sign on the backs of people collecting disability. Most of this has been in the name of decreasing the national debt.
As Ronald Reagan noted in a 1984 Presidential Speech, which can be seen here (http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=ihUoRD4pYzI), Social Security Disability benefits have no bearing on the national debt. If drastic measures were to be taken to cut Social Security Disability benefits, by either heightening the standard or lowering benefits, it would not serve to ease the national debt, only increase the Social Security Trust, as that money saved would be sent straight back to that fund.
During the Presidential Debates, President Obama and former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney both discussed Social Security reform, but they were both discussing it in the context of protecting the Social Security Trust, not in the context of lowering the national debt. Since the election, discourse on Social Security reform has shifted to imply that it will lower the national debt. Targeting Social Security Disability and its recipients does not make up for any prior fiscal policies that result in increasing the national debt.
If politicians wish to propose reforms on Social Security, and increase the discussion on Social Security Disability policy, discourse can be positive if it draws more attention to the issues that claimants are facing when they apply, and the laws that govern Social Security Disability claims themselves. Reform proposals become negative when politicians fail to provide adequate context for voters to make up their minds. Reforming Social Security to protect the trust fund may have a positive impact on the system. Attacking Disability recipients to convince people that cutting benefits will decrease the national debt is not correct.
