The Social Security Scam

Scott Kauzlarich

A Journal for Western Man-- Issue XXXII-- March 16, 2005

Both Republicans and Democrats acknowledge that the current Social Security system is flawed. To us, the problem is that the government takes our money and gives us less back when we retire than if we had just kept it ourselves. For the politicians, the problem is how to maintain the status quo on this gigantic wealth transfer without alarming too many people as to what a scam the whole thing is. .

With so much at stake for our rulers, it's no surprise that they tip-toe around the Social Security issue. It's a rhetorical minefield, one usually navigated by holding fast to the claim that Social Security is a retirement plan. You don't pay a "tax" you make a "contribution" to your own retirement.

Every once in a while, however, the mask slips and a little truth comes squirting through. The latest truth-leak comes from Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), in the form of some DNC Social Security talking points (www.democrats.org/blog/comment/00011639.html).

Rejecting Ownership

The talking points focus mainly on why women, minorities, and other groups should oppose the President's privatization plan. For example, the privatizing plan could lead to discrimination against African-Americans. How would ownership of one's own money be discriminating?

According to the DNC, "Social Security gives people with lower earnings a greater return on what they paid in, and African-Americans on average have lower incomes … But private accounts would not continue these progressive benefits."

In the Alice-In-Wonderland world we now live in, not giving minorities part of what you earn is now "discrimination." Treating everyone equally, having everyone simply keep what they have produced, is now a manifestation of prejudice, according to the DNC.

In other words, if you're black, a woman, or Hispanic, you'd be crazy to support an ownership plan because under the current arrangement, you get more back than what you pay in. Of course, that is the intrinsic fault in the system which forces us to constantly reform it in the first place.

Furthermore, the pretense of a connection between what you pay in and what you take out has been completely discarded. The talking points reveal it as not just a pension scheme, but also a welfare program.

It is an admission that Social Security serves as a vehicle for government wealth re-distribution, with millions of Americans sacrificing the time-value of their money so that bureaucrats can meet self-defined social goals based on race and gender politics rather than sound fiscal policy.

Ironically, supporting the status quo because it gives a "progressive" return to women and minorities is an admission that those groups are less productive than other groups. The DNC must also assume that they will remain less productive. If they ever increase their productivity, they will cease to be getting a good deal from Social Security.

The Disincentive Machine

The defenders of Social Security have given up trying to defend the system based on clear standards of right and wrong. They have abandoned the notion of self-sufficiency or even the hope of self-sufficiency. They have left us with a system in which those that pay more get less and those that pay less get more. And they celebrate that system without shame.

They are unabashedly encouraging people to reject even a symbolic measure of ownership and personal control in favor of government largess. It's exhilarating to see such an honest rejection of ethics from the statists who usually hide behind pseudo-property rights. If the government had set out to create a system in which responsibility is discouraged, I don't think they could do much better.

If we sever the relationship between productivity and security, how likely is it that we will see an increase in productivity? And what will happen if we install an inverse relationship? Is there any doubt that responsibility, productivity, and self-governance will decline?

Nancy Pelosi and the DNC have made their stand abundantly clear. Behind the talk of secure retirements and benefits is a growing socialist poverty machine, where previous generations that failed to plan for their future have inflicted their fate upon the rest of us.

I used to tell people that if I wanted to drop out of Social Security I should be able to do so. If I don't put anything in, and I don't take anything out, what does it matter? No one would be hurt, so why can't I be free of the system?

How wrong I was. It was never about putting something in and taking something out. It was designed from the outset to milk me, to take not only what I would later take out, but more.

Those who want to keep the system as it is know the truth. They can never allow me to leave because the whole system is based on me working and earning so others don't have to.

Scott Kauzlarich is a professor of Social Science at Ellsworth Community College in Iowa Falls, IA. He can be contacted at: Scott.Kauzlarich@iavalley.edu.

 Give feedback on this work at TRA's forum, which you can access at http://rationalarg.proboards24.com.

Advertise your business or product permanently on TRA for a mere $1 donation to a worthy endeavor to combat human aging. Click here to learn more.

Help bring about the cure for human aging within our lifetimes. Learn how you can help through the Chicago Methuselah Foundation Fund.

Visit The Rational Argumentator's new Online Store.

Visit TRA's Yahoo! Group, a means of notification and communication for our subscribers. You can find it at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/rationalargumentator. You can sign up by sending an e-mail to rationalargumentator-subscribe@yahoogroups.com.

Click here to return to the Issue XXXII index.

Visit TRA's Master Index, a convenient way of navigating throughout the issues of the magazine. Click here.