OPINION: What Nick Begich III really thinks about Social Security

After reading through the Alaska AARP questionnaire of our Congressional candidates, I was curious if Nick Begich III’s actions match his rhetoric. It’s one thing for campaign staff to draft up written answers, but the candidates’ records and own statements can be more revealing about their real views on key policies for Alaska seniors.

On the one hand, Begich’s AARP response acknowledged Social Security’s important safety-net function, while on the other, he incorrectly asserted that Social Security contributions are improperly invested and used to fund deficit spending. Furthermore, upon doing a little more research, I was mystified to discover that Begich said Social Security is a “Ponzi scheme,” in candid remarks on the right-wing Michael Dukes talk radio show. Does Nick Begich actually think Social Security is a scam? Not if you read the remarks his campaign staff wrote for the AARP questionnaire. So, on talk radio, Begich was either revealing his real views or pandering to extremists who, for decades, have intentionally confused and misinformed people in an effort to dismantle or defund Social Security. Either way, nothing could be further from the truth. Begich’s Ponzi claim should be disqualifying for any self-respecting senior citizen, not to mention every hard-working Alaskan who is contributing to Social Security with every paycheck.

Far from being a Ponzi scheme, Social Security is an earned benefit where contributions provide income to retirees and disabled Americans. For most Alaskans, it’s the only form of defined benefits in retirement. People who work hard and earn the benefits enjoy a very modest pension in retirement, whereas people who don’t work (or work in a non-Social Security eligible job with alternate retirement programs, such as State of Alaska employees vested into the Public Employee Retirement System) do not. Begich offers voters a misguided interpretation of how Social Security funding works. He’s threatening a retirement program most of us have already paid into. That’s simply unacceptable.

Opponents of Social Security have been trying to dismantle it for years. During the George W. Bush administration, Wall Street groupies tried to privatize the program so they could earn billions in management fees by converting a defined benefit to individual 401(k)s that shift risk to retirees and profits to Wall Street. Fortunately, Congress resoundingly rejected the Bush plan.

With regularity, actuaries give estimates of how well-funded Social Security is. This kind of analysis is essential for any retirement program. Fortunately, the recently passed Inflation Reduction Act cracks down on tax evasion and saves billions by finally allowing the federal government to negotiate down pharmaceutical prices. Thanks to the vote of Rep. Peltola and others who have actually stood up for seniors, the Inflation Reduction Act’s fiscally conservative provisions protect the security of Social Security by shoring up the finances of the federal government.

Getting back to that AARP questionnaire: Nick Begich III claimed he supports negotiating prices with drug companies. Guess what? Rep. Mary Peltola already delivered that.

Talk is cheap in election season. As voters, we have a responsibility to look beyond slick prepared statements and see what candidates have really done, and what they really believe about issues affecting seniors. In this race, the contrast could not be more clear. Nick Begich is talking out of both sides of his mouth, and in moments of candor he attacks Social Security. In contrast, Mary Peltola has a record of delivering on reducing prescription drug prices and protecting Social Security’s solvency. With several weeks left before the election, there are still plenty of opportunities for all of us to be educated about this important election for Alaska.

Will Nebesky is a retiree and grandfather who is blessed to live in Anchorage and spend lots of time with his children and grandchildren.

The views expressed here are the writer’s and are not necessarily endorsed by the Anchorage Daily News, which welcomes a broad range of viewpoints. To submit a piece for consideration, email commentary(at)adn.com. Send submissions shorter than 200 words to letters@adn.com or click here to submit via any web browser. Read our full guidelines for letters and commentaries here.