One of the missions of this site, is to encourage robust conservative thought. That means we may disagree on how to achieve a common conservative objective. This piece is an invited response to a previous article: Fixing Our Favorite Fiduciary falsehoods.
Ed.
The discussion of Social Security reform is the modern day manifestation of the Tower of Babel, where everyone has a fact that is someone else’s myth largely because each language comes with its own set of facts.
The unfortunate outcome is a shouting match rather than a productive dialogue with a sensible conclusion. There has to be some boundary of fact if policy makers in Washington are going to herd the discussion to a solution.
For Libertarians, the framework of fact starts with a painful one. Social Security is Constitutional, and has been since 1935. Congress has the power to spend money to promote the general welfare. Moreover, the Court ruled that the states are, individually or collectively, prohibited from defining the meaning of general welfare.
If you don’t like that ruling, the Supreme Court would tell you to vote for someone else, who will remove the power to spend in the aid of the general welfare from the Constitution.
Not only did the Court affirm the right of Congress to spend money in this fashion, it also wrote that the Court is interested in power not in wisdom. Essentially, you can’t petition the Court to protect yourself from the wishes of the rest of the nation no matter how foolish those wishes might be.
You may disagree, and a lot of people do. Some argue that the words “Social Security” must be listed in the Constitution, or the power is reserved for the states. It is non-sequitur. By that logic, military pensions would be also unconstitutional because the words “military pension”, like “Social Security”, do not appear in the Constitution.
Where is the uproar over how we pay our military?
If you continue to believe that Social Security is unconstitutional and do not have time to vote for someone else, you can petition the Court to consider whether Social Security continues to be Constitutional. The Helvering V Davis decision was issued in 1935. Given that Social Security was entirely rewritten in 1977, the Constitutionality of the largest expense of government has received little consideration by the highest Court.
For example, wage-indexing added in 1977 largely serves Washington’s political class rather than the general welfare of the nation. As a consequence of this change, our elected officials have been able to watch from the sidelines vigorously wringing hands as the program which serves “the general welfare” spins out of control.
Wage-indexing is a terrible idea which expands benefits faster than the change generates the revenue required to pay for the largesse of politics.
There is nothing that stops you from putting your money where your mouth is. So, stop complaining, get your lawyers and take the program to Court. So, stop complaining and go to Court. Frankly, I would love to see the legal argument that creating an unstable pension serves the “general welfare.”
The second myth that Libertarians mistakenly embrace is the possibility that the monster we face is a creation of FDR. In fact, Social Security as configured today is everything that FDR opposed.
While I may not share all of the author’s conclusions, I will share Robert Samuelson’s Washington Post oped from 2012. In a subject where fact is basically the parsley of polemics, his work is remarkable. He wrote, “Social Security has evolved into something (FDR) never intended and actively opposed.”
During his term, FDR’s administration repeatedly warned Congress about the impact of the changes it was making to the program. FDR not only opposed the changes that Congress made in the 1940s, he vetoed them. (Congress overrode the veto).
FDR specifically warned us about the dangers of a pay-as-you-go system. He said “(pay-as-you-go) is the same old dole under another name. It is almost dishonest to build up an accumulated deficit for the Congress … to meet.” FDR was polite. There is no “almost” about it.
FDR didn’t plan a bail-out 100 years into the future. The imbalances of the program’s finances are not FDR’s monstrosity. It is the predictable outcome of our parents and grandparents ignoring his wisdom.
We are actually blaming FDR for the voting choices that we have made over the past 40 years. FDR isn’t the problem. We are.
If you enjoyed this article, then please REPOST or SHARE with others; encourage them to follow AFNN. If you’d like to become a citizen contributor for AFNN, contact us at managingeditor@afnn.us Help keep us ad-free by donating here.
Truth Social: @AFNN_USA
Facebook: https://m.facebook.com/afnnusa
Telegram: https://t.me/joinchat/2_-GAzcXmIRjODNh
Twitter: https://twitter.com/AfnnUsa
GETTR: https://gettr.com/user/AFNN_USA
CloutHub: @AFNN_USA