Social Security, and other government goodies

      Today I performed a major milestone in my life that every American looks forward to:  I applied for Social Security!  I turn 65 in just three short months.

      As one of the world's staunchest libertarians, you probably suspect that, politically, I am opposed to the whole Social Security scheme, and its cousin Medicare.  It is, after all, a governmental system of wealth redistribution whereby bureaucrats coercively collect money from all taxpayers (and their employer) and then pays it back out based on age and/or disability.  Minus the government's rather hefty handling charges, of course.  And yes, you'd be correct: I do indeed oppose the whole rotten affair, lock stock and barrel.

      So now you may be thinking:  if this nutcase blogger is politically opposed to it, how can he simultaneously be a recipient of this governmental goodie? 

      It's a fair question and I will answer.

      Understand, first, that political support - or the lack thereof - of any government program is NOT the same thing as utilizing it.  Social Security, like all such programs, relies on MANDATORY participation.  We citizens do not have a choice.  We, and our employer, must pay those FICA taxes, and if we don't, we will get a friendly visit from armed government enforcers who will use whatever physical force is necessary to persuade you to comply. 

      And so, after happily contributing to Social Security all these decades, I now have the opportunity to get on the receiving end.  I could, of course, say that it's all an evil, socialistic wealth redistribution system financed with money stolen from innocent taxpayers.  It's blood money, and therefore I will not have anything to do with it!  But that would accomplish nothing.  It is, after all, MY money.  Take it or leave it, my actions would have zero effect on the system's continued existence.  Even if I refused it, it won't make the system go away.

      It's no different from all the other services that government finances via taxes.  For example, I oppose government-run transportation, including roads.  Transportation should be handled by the market, not the government; see my article.  But, I still drive my car on the tax-supported streets.  Refusing to drive on them won't change a thing.  Ditto for government schools, where I sent my kids, and the government-run fire department, who I will certainly call if my house catches fire.  I don't like that the government runs them, but I didn't have a choice when they taxed me to pay for them. 

      Another example is unemployment compensation.  Disclaimer here:  I have collected unemployment in the past.  I detest the concept behind this despicable program:  taking money out of the economy to pay people to NOT work, as opposed to leaving it IN the economy where employers could use it to pay people TO work.  It only encourages sloth and discourages resourcefulness.  But when I lost my job, I chose to take the money.  Why?  Because it had my name on it, and refusing it would accomplish nothing.

      However, voting or advocating for or against government-run programs such as schools, roads, fire departments, or monetary benefits is a totally different animal.  Given the opportunity, I would definitely vote to abolish any one of them.

      But if you have been paying attention, you should see that there is clearly a Catch 22 here:  I, and the millions of Americans who receive SS benefits, paid into the system.  In my case, I paid DEARLY for many decades.  As mentioned earlier:  it's MY money, and I expect to get something back for all that "investment".  The only thing in the universe worse than the government picking my pocket for some future benefit is the government picking my pocket and then reneging on the deal.

      And that, dear reader, is the Number One problem when government starts up any program:  once the people start using it, then it's near impossible to abolish it.  Social Security is the Classic Example; it is now officially engraved like concrete into the very DNA of our culture.  It's advocates, in fact, ceaselessly praise its glories, singing from the mountaintops how vital and wonderful it is, and how it has saved millions from poverty and ensured comfortable retirement for all.  Thus Social Security cannot realistically be cut off, cold turkey.  It must be PHASED out. 

      Here's how to do it:  First, current beneficiaries will be paid their promised benefits until they die. 

      Secondly, anyone not currently receiving benefits would be given a choice:  stay in, or drop out.  If they opt to stay in, then they pay taxes as usual.  But if they opt out, then they pay no SS taxes but receive no SS benefits, ever. 

      Finally, this caveat: for all future beneficiaries, the system must be self-sustaining.  All benefits must be paid by SS taxes.  If too many people do indeed opt out, then taxes will need to be raised sufficiently to cover all costs.  Oldsters getting close to retirement must weigh the financial pros and cons and decide if it's worth it to stay in.  But for youngsters with a long way to go and possibly facing HUGE taxes, opting out would be the clear winner.

      The above scenario introduces a really strange, bizarre concept:  CHOICE.  Image that!  The United States of America, the Land of the Free, giving its citizens a CHOICE over something, in this case how to finance their retirement.  Americans could then shop around amongst investment plans, and find the one that gives the biggest bang for the buck. 

      I can hear the screams of agony now, crying out:  "But we cannot do that!  If we give people a CHOICE regarding paying SS taxes, none will, and the program will die!"

     Hold on a sec.  A minute ago, all you advocates were singing from mountaintops or something about how great and wonderful SS is.  Now you're flipping around 180 degrees and saying that, given the choice, everyone would opt out?  Which is it?  Is SS a good thing, or a bad thing?  If it really is that great, then no one will opt out.  Or are you admitting that the only reason it survives is thru coercion at the hands of government goons with weapons?

      The SS advocates will probably come back with some argument like:  "But people are not responsible enough.  They won't properly invest for their retirement.  We, the all-knowing, all-caring gods of government must FORCE them to join our program.  It's for their own good!"

      Admittedly, the first part of that sentence is true - for some.  There are people who don't do the right things.  They don't eat healthy food, they don't work hard in school, they drink and smoke and cheat on their spouses, they squander their money, and do all sorts of stupid, irresponsible things.  But the purpose of government is not to ban stupidity.  It doesn't work.  Besides, I'm a big boy now.  I can cross the street on my own and run my life without government nannies holding my hand.

      Meanwhile, most people ARE pretty smart.  Given the opportunity, they'll invest all that money wisely, instead of letting government suck it away for this black-hole of a Ponzi scheme called Social Security.

      And by the way, don't expect a Republican to offer any kind of intelligent plan like what I have just outlined above.  Despite Republican talk about "smaller, more efficient government", the cold hard facts are that they and the Democrats are cut from the same mold:  they both believe that any human problem imaginable can be solved if you just had bigger government.