This article is part of Ad Watch, a series examining claims made in political ads leading up to the Nov. 5 election. In the column, which The Morning Call revives during major election years, reporter Lindsay Weber researches claims made in political ads, puts them into context and reaches a “verdict” on the accuracy of the claims. If you have an ad for us to fact check, email liweber@mcall.com with Ad Watch in the subject line. View all our election coverage at themorningcall.com/election.
The race
Democratic U.S. Rep. Susan Wild faces Republican challenger state Rep. Ryan Mackenzie in Pennsylvania’s 7th Congressional District, which covers all of Lehigh, Northampton and Carbon counties and a small part of Monroe County.
It is expected to be a tight race that could determine which party claims control of the House of Representatives — Cook Political Report has named the race a “Democratic toss-up” and the New York Times has called it a “race to watch.”
Wild is running for a fourth term representing the Lehigh Valley’s district; she was reelected in 2022 by a relatively slim 1.6 percentage points.
Before being elected, Wild was a solicitor for Allentown and partner with Allentown firm Gross McGinley. Mackenzie is a six-term Republican state representative from Lehigh County.
The ad
Several Democrat-backed ads running in the local market have attacked Mackenzie’s stance on Social Security and Medicare. One from Wild’s campaign claims Mackenzie supports a “radical plan” that could gut Social Security and Medicare benefits. It claims the plan — which is not named or specified — would prevent seniors from being able to afford their homes and restrict access to health care.
A similar ad from the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee also makes the same claim. A voiceover of a man who is not identified says, “Everything from food to housing seems to be getting more and more expensive for my family.”
The voiceover then says, “what worries me most” is parents and grandparents losing access to Social Security and Medicare. Again, the voiceover claims that Mackenzie supports a “radical plan” to gut those benefits, and encourages viewers to vote against him in November.
Analysis
The fund reserved for paying out Social Security benefits to seniors will become insolvent by 2035, according to financial projections — in other words, there will not be enough people paying into the fund to cover benefits for everyone who will be eligible. Some people are understandably concerned that Social Security benefits could be reduced in the future if Congress does not act.
Democrats and Republicans have proposed different solutions to keep the fund solvent. Some Democrats have proposed raising the maximum amount of Social Security payroll tax that can be collected from those with higher incomes.
Some Republicans have voiced support for making spending on Social Security and Medicare “discretionary” instead of “mandatory,” which could lead to those benefits being re-evaluated or cut. This is sometimes called a “zero-based budget” approach, and means that all spending must be reviewed “from scratch” and justified every year, instead of starting with the previous budget and adjusting it.
Around two-thirds of annual federal spending is mandatory, and does not require an annual vote by Congress. The other third is discretionary spending, and is reviewed and voted on by Congress every year.
In a statement, Mackenzie campaign spokesperson Arnaud Armstrong said that the candidate does not support a plan to make Social Security or Medicare “discretionary” instead of mandatory. On his campaign website, he also lists preserving Social Security and Medicare as a top priority if elected.
The ad that criticizes Mackenzie cites an interview Mackenzie did with Andrew Wilkow, a conservative radio show host on SiriusXM, in 2023. Wilkow asks Mackenzie if he is “a vote to cut spending” — though he does not specify what spending — and Mackenzie says “yes, absolutely.”
“When there are areas where there is waste, or a program has just simply outlived its usefulness … it’s appropriate to make changes,” Mackenzie said.
In that interview, Mackenzie did not touch on any specific cuts he would want to make to federal spending. He said is a “fan” of the zero-based budget approach in Pennsylvania, but he does not specifically say he would want to implement such an approach on the federal level.
Mackenzie has proposed cutting spending to other programs to help address the projected Social Security fund insolvency. In a statement, Armstrong cited some specific spending Mackenzie would want to roll back, including tax credits for electric vehicles and subsidies for some corporations authorized by the CHIPS Act.
Verdict
The ad is lacking important context. Although Mackenzie has said he is a “fan” of zero-based budgeting, it is a stretch to immediately conclude that he would advocate for cutting Social Security and Medicare. He has pointed to other, specific cuts to government spending he would like to make, and has explicitly called maintaining Medicare and Social Security a priority.
Reporter Lindsay Weber can be reached at Liweber@mcall.com.