BY: EMMANUEL ROY

Forty years of failed leadership, corruption, and sheer incompetence have turned Haiti into a failed state controlled by criminal gangs financed by Haitian businessmen.

While Haiti burns, West Africa is experiencing the emergence of young, vibrant, and progressive leadership. A new axis of resistance is spanning the Sahel region of Africa, from west to east, from Burkina Faso, Mali, and Niger to Chad, Sudan, Eritrea, and now Senegal; these young leaders, which include Ibrahim Traore, 36, of Burkina Faso, Aby Ahmed, 46, of Ethiopia, Andry Rajoelina, 48, of Madagascar, as well as Julius Malema, 44, of South Africa are part of the new, young Pan-African generation focused on sovereignty, and the fight against corruption, exploitation and incompetence. This young generation is not only reclaiming its independence from its former colonial masters but also divorcing itself from the politics of the past.

As Haiti struggles to create a transitional government to reclaim control of the country from criminal gangs, it can learn some essential lessons from Burkina Faso and Senegal – a complete breakaway from traditional politicians to a new emerging generation of progressive leaders.
Four weeks ago, criminal gangs took over the local international airport in Port-au-Prince and the local prison, freeing over four thousand prisoners, and threatened a civil war if the sitting prime minister Ariel Henry were to return. Henry was on a trip to Kenya to sign an agreement with Kenyan President William Ruto to allow a thousand Kenyan police officers to come to Haiti.

CARICOM, a regional Caribbean organization under the dicta of the international community, has been working with local political parties (Lavalas, PHTK, Pitit Dessalines, RED, and others) to develop a negotiated power-sharing agreement. Two weeks later, they devised a Presidential Council comprising seven voting members and two observers. This Presidential Council of former politicians from the same political parties that led Haiti to where it is today was dead on arrival.

From the Haitian Diaspora on all seven continents to Haiti, the people overwhelmingly rejected the Presidential Council in favor of one President from the nation’s Highest Court. Article 149 of the 1987 Haitian Constitution stipulates that the most senior judge on the bench shall become President in the absence of a president. The Presidential Council is, therefore, illegal both in form and substance and should not be installed.

Prime Minister Ariel Henry is at an undisclosed location in Puerto Rico and has yet to sign power over to the Presidential Council. Meanwhile, three groups of lawyers in Haiti hired by the Haitian Diaspora have filed lawsuits in Port-au-Prince against the Presidential Council, Caricom, and Prime Minister Henry, seeking to enjoin him and the government from transferring power to the Presidential Council.
The Biden administration seems to favor the Presidential Council. Still, the Haitian Diaspora has provided the White House with Plan B, which includes appointing a judge from Haiti’s Highest Court to lead the transitional government, a choice applauded by the people of Haiti.

The Haitian Diaspora is flexing its political muscle for the first time in history. First, the Diaspora organized the Louisiana Unity Summit in January 2022 at Southern University in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, which brought over 11 Haitian groups together to negotiate a settlement. After three days of negotiations, the delegates of these groups selected Fritz Jean, a former Governor of the Haiti Central Bank, as Prime Minister to lead the transitional government. As Montana’s lobbyists were pushing the seven-member Presidential Council, the Haitian Diaspora was quietly working, pushing the White House to consider a judge from Haiti’s Supreme Court.

The Presidential Council would never work, and the international community and CARICOM knew that. The Montana Accord initiated the proposal to usurp power. Given the overwhelming opposition to the Presidential Council, the Haitian Diaspora’s Plan B can save the day and move Haiti in the right direction.

Republicans in Congress have proposed a plan to shore up the Social Security Trust Fund, mainly by slowly increasing the retirement age from 67 to 69. Despite an immediate objection from President Joe Biden and top Democrats, raising the retirement age is crucial to the long-term health of Social Security.

As recently as 2020 Social Security took in more revenue than it paid in benefits. But the tables have turned, and the federal government expects the program take in $1.17 trillion this year and pay out $1.32 trillion. The $150 billion shortfall will be made up by drawing down on the program’s $2.63 trillion trust fund.

That $150 billion may seem manageable, but the problem grows larger each year. By 2032, the government expects benefits to exceed revenues by about $500 billion annually. If we do nothing, the Social Security Trust Fund will be exhausted by 2034. If it gets to that point, the law requires a 23% cut in benefits across the board to ensure money coming into the program equals that flowing out.

No one wants to see benefits cut. The financial shock to seniors would be enormous. Yet, unless some radical measures are taken, cuts will be almost impossible to avoid. Raising the retirement age to 69 would bring the annual growth of Social Security costs in line with the annual increase in revenue by 2030, according to an analysis by the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget.

It’s not like such a move would be unprecedented. When Social Security last faced an insolvency crisis, in 1983, Congress passed a bipartisan solution that included raising the retirement age from 65 to 67 in recognition of increasing lifespans. The same rationale remains true today. Between 1950 and 1980, the life expectancy of 65-year-olds increased by 2.5 years from 78.9 to 81.4. From 1980 to 2019, it increased an additional 3.2 years to 84.6.

Critics argue that raising the retirement age unfairly punishes the poor because the life expectancy of lower-income Americans has risen far less than that of higher-income Americans. However, life expectancy is only one part of the picture. What also must be considered is the total amount retirees can expect to receive.

Under the Republican proposal, the lowest-quintile group by income could expect to receive more in benefits than they pay in contributions, while it’s the opposite for the highest-quintile group. Consider an analysis of rising life expectancies by the Social Security Administration in 2009 that found the lowest-income quintile participating in the Social Security system saw their lifetime benefits boosted by about 12%. On the other hand, the highest-income quintile saw their lifetime incomes fall by 1.3%.

Moreover, this gap has grown over time. Over the past 25 years, the highest quintile has seen its net benefits shrink by 2.6 percentage points, while the net benefits for the lowest quintile have remained steady. So, even as higher-income Americans live longer, their Social Security return is declining.

There are a few reasons for this. First, Social Security benefits are taxable for higher income Americans. Second, much of the reduction in life expectancies for poor Americans is related to the opioid crisis, which primarily impacts Americans under 65. Finally, the program is fundamentally designed to provide a greater return on contributions from lower-income Americans.

Rather than raising the retirement age, Biden would seek to extend the life of Social Security through tax increases on those making more than $400,000 a year, in effect repealing the Trump administration tax cuts for that group of Americans, a move that would boost revenues by about $125 billion annually. Yet, that would still not cover even this year’s shortfall, and would only extend solvency by a few years. In contrast, raising the retirement age would create savings that grow over time.

Stabilizing Social Security’s finances has long been one of Congress’s most challenging tasks. The sole major successful effort, the 1983 reform, was predicated on recognizing that longer lifespans necessitated an increase in the retirement age. Biden and leading Democrats must accept that the same reality holds true today even if it jeopardizes his re-election campaign. It’s the least bad option.

Karl W. Smith is a Bloomberg Opinion columnist. Previously, he was vice president for federal policy at the Tax Foundation and assistant professor of economics at the University of North Carolina.

Related Articles

Ludwig, Miller: We are seeing a lethal shift in America’s shooting crisis

Allison Schrager: What are the odds of enjoying March Madness now?

Lisa Jarvis: Parents alone can’t protect kids from social media

David Brooks: The great struggle for liberalism

Trudy Rubin: ISIS terror attack in Moscow and GOP obstructionists play into Putin’s hands