Short Stack: Time For Entitlement Reform
No one is forcing us to continue bad public policies from the past. We can choose something better, something worthy of civic virtue and free productive people rather than dependency and discord.
Following the election of Donald Trump, there has been a widespread and genuine civic interest in reducing the scope of the federal government, addressing the sprawling progressive administrative state, and reducing how much of other people's money our government spends.
This is a welcome development.
However, we should be honest if we are to be serious: Any effort to reduce federal spending in significant amounts must address the growing problem of runaway entitlement programs.
Entitlement By Another Name
Currently, half of all federal spending—measured in trillions annually—goes to what are, effectively, national entitlement programs: Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid.
Some citizens protest with indignation that Social Security is not an entitlement program, arguing that they earned their benefits through contributions made during their working years.
This assumption, while widespread, is mistaken.
Since Social Security began distributing benefits, many Americans have received far more in benefits than they contributed.
Ida May Fuller was the first recipient of Social Security benefits. She contributed $24.75 to the system during her working years. Retiring in 1939 at age 65, Ms. Fuller received her first Social Security check in January 1940. She lived to be a hundred years old, receiving benefits for 35 years.
Her Social Security benefits amounted to $22,888.92 — nearly 1,000 times what she contributed. These payments were funded not by her own contributions, but by working Americans. Social Security has always been a generational transfer program, redistributing money from young workers to old retirees.
When current revenues fall short, the government funds benefits by spending money it doesn’t have, adding to the national debt that will be crushing for our children and grandchildren.
The pattern that began with Ms. Fuller persists today: large numbers of beneficiaries receive more than they contribute. Social Security is, therefore, an entitlement program—even though Social Security was falsely advertised by Franklin Roosevelt and other New Deal Democrats as “insurance” when they passed legislation and launched the government program in 1935.
When Medicare and Medicaid are added to Social Security—none of which are constitutionally legitimate—these entitlement programs together account for half of annual federal spending. To boot, this spending is not discretionary. Federal law mandates automated funding and administration of these programs.
Opportunity for Reform
There is no better time than the present to spark a national conversation about real welfare and entitlement reform in the United States. This moment offers a unique window of opportunity to address the structural issues of welfare and entitlement programs, placing them on a path toward eventual phase-out while supporting those currently dependent on them and preparing future generations for genuine independence.
If not now, when? If not us, who?
There are many paths to reform. By adopting policies that balance care for those who have become dependent with fostering self-reliance, we can create a system that eliminates dependency and fear while promoting individual freedom, personal responsibility, and real civic friendship.
As citizens, we stand at crossroads. We have options. No one is forcing us to continue the bad public policies of the past. We can choose something better, something worthy of civic virtue and free productive people rather than dependency, compliance, and a culture of envy-fueled division.
Let’s not squander this moment. Let us use this opportune time to revisit, reform, and ultimately abolish the old and failed entitlement programs that incentivize irresponsibility and civic discord while weighing heavily upon all of us.
Let us seize this moment to build a better future—a future of freedom, prosperity, integrity, and civic unity, where families, neighbors, and fellow citizens voluntarily help each other, as individuals.
Another problem with SS is that working citizens and the businesses that employ them are forced, but government edict, to “contribute.” This is another (involuntary) tax.
Implied in this tax is the arrogant assumption that a government entity can invest our money better than can the citizen. Granted, most citizens are financial illiterates, but SS negates the intent of the founding: freedom requires responsibility. My point, yes SS must be reformed or eliminated. If reformed the solution must involve individual control of investments.
Yes! If you ignore the moral injustice of it all, and the injustice that steadily "accrues" as does the debt, it is long since past due for "reform" of these so-called entitlements.
While moral clarity, depending on what one considers to be moral, is fairly easy to determine, in today's culture, what is thought to be "moral" has become a morass of complexity woven with the most complex of political threads!
In such a web of entrapment, the devil will always be in the details. Perhaps we can make this topic a part of our discussion tonight as we enjoy smoke and spirits?
Dave