In November I will get my seventh opportunity to vote for Mariannette Miller-Meeks for Congress. I will decline, again. The incumbent is not doing enough on important issues of our times. I am thinking particularly of Social Security.

She made a splash with her support for Secretary of the Treasury Scott Bessent’s bill to open access to the Social Security database by the Treasury Department. This is a quest to stop Social Security payments for people who died.

Whatever.

Shouldn’t the Social Security Administration already have such a process in place? The most pressing problem is an actuarial one. The Social Security Trust Fund will not be able to pay full benefits beginning in 2032 without changes. “Changes” means Miller-Meeks and other like her must do something. Thus far they haven’t.

There are a number of proposals related to Social Security in both chambers of the legislature, sponsored by both Republicans and Democrats. I don’t see Miller-Meeks supporting any of them, including the House bill introduced by a Republican to form a bipartisan committee to address the issue.

I am unaware of any public statement from Miller-Meeks that lays out a specific plan for fixing Social Security’s projected 2032 financing gap. None.

She says Social Security must be protected. What does that mean? Her inference is protecting the program from waste and fraud. It shouldn’t take an act of Congress to do that. This is not the position of a serious member of Congress and represents no solution to the actuarial problem.

She co-sponsored legislation focused on removing deceased recipients from the roles, and making sure only qualified people receive benefits. Again, why would it take an act of Congress to do that? The Social Security Administration should be doing that already. If administrators are doing an insufficient job, get people in position who will do better.

Another of her claims to fame concerns making tax deductions for Social Security recipients permanent. Nothing in that legislation addresses the actuarial problem.

Miller-Meeks seeks to “control federal spending,” and “make Congress live within its means.” That sounds pretty good, yet she doesn’t connect that idea to the actuarial problem. She could propose any number of changes to support these ideas. If they exist, I have not seen them.

There are plenty of ideas available to resolve the actuarial problem, including raise the cap on taxable earnings, change the structure of the program by modifying eligibility requirements, or joining the bipartisan commission/process proposals now being discussed. Where is Miller-Meeks? Nowhere to be found.

If Miller-Meeks had public Town Hall Meetings, someone should ask directly, “You have said that you want to protect Social Security. The trustees now project the retirement trust fund will be depleted around 2032. What specific changes to taxes, benefits, retirement age, or other financing do you support to prevent the roughly 22% reduction in scheduled benefits?” Since an answer to this type of question doesn’t fall under the umbrella of her vapid statement about “protecting Social Security,” I doubt she would answer.

It’s time for a new member of Congress in Iowa’s First District. Christina Bohannan is available and willing to say publicly how she would resolve the actuarial problem with Social Security. Vote for Christina Bohannan on or before November 3.