So it begins. Last Thursday morning marked the beginning of an ugly season. It was the first time my TV news viewing was interrupted by an unwelcome 9th Congressional District campaign ad.

Standards haven’t been raised, and the content exemplified a real political problem: The dumbing down of important policy issues voters should and can understand.

Democratic incumbent Baron Hill was the provider of this scary omen. The ad was almost identical to his previously released challenge to Republican opponent Todd Young to pledge to “protect Social Security.”

There’s no reason Young couldn’t go along with that pledge. It could mean almost anything, and as exemplified by Hill’s previous campaign style after pledging to a minister to stay positive — “pledge” is loosely defined by politicians.

Hill’s slogany, meaningless pledge to protect the government-run, mandatory retirement program is coupled with quotes of Young calling the program a Ponzi scheme. Only in the ad, it’s worse, because he replays the footage of Young making that statement over and over again.

Hill’s simplistic approach implies we can’t handle honest discussion about the condition of Social Security and options for reform. We can and need to. I wrote on the subject of the 9th District candidates’ Social Security stances several weeks ago. Feedback I received suggests people are ready for this discussion.

Now anytime I make the least bit of fun of, or just moan and groan about, the silliness of 9th District campaigning, I get a positive reaction. I’m not the only one who hates it. We’re in this ridiculous boat together.

Yet still, I received many thumbs-up for the previous column even though I agreed with Young’s Ponzi label and encouraged the candidate to go ahead and say what he thinks on the subject rather than cowering, back-peddling or evading. Some of those thumbs-up even came from liberal people with several more gray hairs than me.

To my own recollection, what to do about Social Security has been an issue for at least 10 years. Remember those pledges about a “lock-box” that would prevent money from the Social Security Trust Fund being diverted to fund other spending? Had something like that come to pass,  perhaps the fund would be something other than an IOU to be paid with deficit spending.

Libertarian candidate for the 9th District, Greg Knott, who accepted Hill’s pledge challenge, is recommending a reform similar to the what the winning presidential candidate  of 2000 promised: keep the promises of the program for older workers while giving younger workers an option of a personal account. My personal account option must’ve been lost in the mail.

There’s nothing ideological about math, and most of us get the obvious. There’s already more money being paid out in benefits than is coming in from taxes. This occurred years earlier than forecast. Because of the large number of retirees compared to workers paying in, soon each retiree will be supported by only two workers. Think about your family budget for a minute while that information sinks in.

There are other problems with the program. Social Security represents a regressive tax.  The poor pay a higher percentage of their income than the rich. Black males are particularly harmed as they do not get the return on the investment other groups receive.

Though treated as a poverty program, most of the money is paid to the non-poor, and the elderly as a group have the highest level of disposable income compared to other age groups. There’s no way to pass on what you’ve paid to your family. The program has fairness problems, and it’s heading for insolvency as it’s currently structured.

Rather than annoying, insulting or avoiding us, congressional candidates should be working to honestly inform and engage us. There’s a long list of possible reforms to the program, what our governor recently referred to as a “Chinese menu” of options.

Options range from keeping the program as is while raising taxes, to gradually, but totally eliminating the program and putting nothing but personal responsibility and compassionate charity in its stead. More moderate options include raising the retirement age, means-testing, privatization, raising or eliminating the income cap for paying into the system and more.

Action must be taken, and effective action will necessarily alter the program in a significant way. It’s seriously broken. It will take serious work to make the program something other than what it currently is: A redistribution of wealth from the poor to the comfortable and from the young to the old based on a Ponzi scheme and going broke.

We supposedly have a representative government that acts according the will of the informed citizenry. Is it the people’s will that we be given platitudes and checks while refraining from asking questions? Surely it’s no one’s will to have their intelligence insulted and concerns boiled down to silly slogans.

I did get a laugh from Hill’s ad. Repetition is one of the best ways to drill something into a person’s memory, so there will be people running around with the phrase “Social Security is a Ponzi scheme” in their heads. In which case, they’ll be wondering why Hill wants to protect such a scam.

Also, if the intent was to make Young look bad, it makes no sense to highlight the smartest thing the man has said.

— Write Jeffersonville resident Kelley Curran at kelinawriterhat@aol.com or read her Southern Indiana Agitator blog at kelleycurran.wordpress.com