Fighting It Out Along Ideological Lines

The debate over Social Security is really a debate about the nature of the system itself, about whether a government program is an appropriate way to assist individuals in their old age. Republicans say government has no role in providing financial support for older Americans, that it is not consistent with a nation of free individuals. I say just the opposite. That a government program like Social Security is not only consistent with the purposes of the Constitution but it is also a highly effective means to address a persistent threat to human dignity. Social Security has reduced poverty among senior citizens, allowing many to live their later years in some comfort. It also supports those who already have much but that’s a lesser issue to be addressed if the system survives the assault of the wingnut ideologues.

Social Security has been the fortunate beneficiary of an era of US economic growth and prosperity. During that time, however, changes in the US and world economy have created a variety of social security “crises.” As a twenty something salaried workers, I and my colleagues were skeptical that we would ever see anything from Social Security. A similar “crisis” in the 1980's spurred further doubts. Each time, however, Congress and the President made necessary adjustments, including tax increases, to maintain the program’s solvency. As a result, Social Security is funded through 2042 or 2052, well beyond my expected lifetime. Of course, after 2018, Social Security will have to redeem some of the billions it has loaned the government to finance the Reagan and Bush deficits. Maybe the real crisis is that BushCheney fears or knows that the money will not be there.

One analyst has noted that the debate is not about numbers. It’s an ideological one wherein Republicans reject the idea of public social insurance. In a recent interview George W.Bush said that he wants to offer workers “a private account that they can call their own, a private account they can pass on to the next generation, and a private account that government can't take away." (empahsis mine). Instead he offers an account that Wall Street can vaporize in a moment, an account that may cost 30 times as much as Social Security to administer. That’s the Republican concept of general welfare. Let them argue for it.

I differ strongly, believing as I do in the validity of community action at all levels. To me Social Security is a valuable legacy to future generations. No, I can’t leave a personal account to my heirs but I can leave them with some assurance that life’s vagaries will not wipe them out when they can no longer work. And that’s what Social Security does for Americans. It offers some certainty and reliability in an uncertain world. It offers some protection to citizens at a vulnerable time in their lives. As much as anything the US government does under the authority of the Constitution, Social Security flows from the purposes (”...to promote the General Welfare and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity...”) stated in that document’s Preamble.

Two concepts for life in 21st Century America are in competition in this debate. Neither concept is new, nor is the debatae. How best to promote general welfare and individual liberty has been at issue since the before the founding of this republic. The individualists want to keep all that they earn or amass for their own purposes which, ideally will include contributions to and support of the communities in which they thrive. The choice is always an individual one. On the other side are communitarians, including me, who believe that wealth is amassed and secure only in an organized society which provides the legal framework and necessary force to protect its citizens. Wealth’s debt to society arises from the support it receives from the society and, as a result, society can legitimately claim some portion of that wealth for public and social purposes.

The Republicans have made war on the idea that government has much of a legitimate role in modern America. “Too bureaucratic,” “too easily swayed by special interests” they say. What they fail to see is how government protects wealth and the wealthy. Not only does government provide laws, police, judges and courts to ensure security, it also acts to moderate forces that can lead to chaos and destruction that threaten wealth and property. France in 1789 and Russia in 1917 provide dire examples of what may happen when only property and wealth benefit from government. America in the 1930's faced similar challenges that were averted only by timely, creative action by the Roosevelt Administration.

Social Security was a hallmark of those actions, offering Americans an alternative to the prospect of poverty in old age. Social Security returned a small part of the wealth created by Americans to them in the form of hope in their later years. Nothing that BushCheney has offered is comparable. The “personal accounts” are little more than an assault on the community values that underlie the Social Security System. Some individuals will gain. The community will lose.

The debate about Social Security is an ideological one. My beliefs are best stated in the words of Franklin Roosevelt’s second inaugural address in 1937:

“The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little.”