In an earlier post I pointed out against Robert Samuelson that Social Security (SS), though in ways like a welfare scheme, is not a welfare scheme. Others are chiming in with Samuelson:
Social Security is a welfare program masquerading as an insurance program. People may think of it as forced savings, but that isn't how the program really works.The trust fund and individual account aspects of Social Security are accounting gimmicks. The payroll taxes we pay in are not really saved for our retirements. They are already paying for the benefits of the current retirees. When we retire, if we are very lucky, we will live off the payroll taxes of the poor working stiffs who remain. The trust fund is stuffed with IOUs; the government has already spent the surpluses. Al Gore's lock box has been picked. Millions continue to draw benefits after they've already gotten back everything they paid in plus interest.
The second paragraph is wholly unexceptionable. But consider the fact that to be eligible for SS benefits, a worker must have completed 40 quarters of employment. That fact alone suffices to make it literally false that SS is a welfare program. Add to it the fact that the amount paid out also reflects how long one has been employed and what one's level of compensation has been. So although it is true that SS is like a welfare program in the ways Samuelson mentions, it is not, strictly speaking, a welfare scheme.
Language matters. Precision matters. And if not here, where? If you say what you know to be false for rhetorical effect then you undermine your credibility among those who you need to persuade. Conservatives don't need to persuade conservatives, and they will not be able to persuade leftists. They must pitch their message to the undecided who, if rational, will be put off by sloppy rhetoric and exaggeration.
I note that W. James Antle, III, the author of the linked article, refers to the SS system as "the liberals' Ponzi scheme." But of course it is not a Ponzi scheme. A Ponzi scheme, by definition, is a scheme set up with the intention of defrauding people for the benefit of those running the scheme. But there is nothing fraudulent about the SS sytem: the intentions behind it are good ones! The SS system is no doubt in dire need of reform if not outright elimination. But no good purpose is achieved by calling it a Ponzi scheme. That's either a lie or an exaggeration. Not good, either way. The most you can say is that it is like a Ponzi scheme in being fiscally unsustainable as currently structured.
Conservative exaggeration is politically foolish. Is it not folly to give ammo to the enemy? Is it not folly to choose a means (exaggeration and distortion) that is not conducive to the end (garnering support among the presently uncommitted)?
Recent Comments