Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site gargoyle.UUCP
Path: utzoo!lsuc!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ihnp4!gargoyle!carnes
From: carnes@gargoyle.UUCP (Richard Carnes)
Newsgroups: net.politics
Subject: Re: Re: Social Security vs Social Welfare
Message-ID: <240@gargoyle.UUCP>
Date: Sun, 10-Nov-85 17:56:25 EST
Article-I.D.: gargoyle.240
Posted: Sun Nov 10 17:56:25 1985
Date-Received: Mon, 11-Nov-85 21:14:40 EST
References: <756@whuxl.UUCP> <29200244@uiucdcs> <361@whuts.UUCP> <1270@mhuxt.UUCP> <784@whuxl.UUCP> <10936@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU>
Reply-To: carnes@gargoyle.UUCP (Richard Carnes)
Organization: U. of Chicago, Computer Science Dept.
Lines: 43

In article <10936@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU> Rick McGeer writes:

>Social Security may be the single most odious program the US Federal
>Government runs.  It is not so much a pension plan as a ponzi scheme,
>and it is as singularly successful as the latter as it is
>unsuccessful as the former.  It is a poor social program, as well: it
>transfers from the poor to the rich, from the working to the idle,
>and from the young to the old.  Milton Friedman points out that it is
>a genius for political salesmanship that a program which consists of
>a regressive tax and a welfare-for-the-rich scheme (neither of which,
>obviously, would have flown alone) has been turned into the most
>popular political program of the century.

Friedman characteristically overlooks the possibility that the
popularity of the program may be due to a widely shared consensus in
favor of the ideal that Social Security represents, so he must invent
imaginary political supersalesmen to explain its popularity.  The
ideal is communal provision of a subsistence for those who are not
able to work or who have lost their source of support:  the elderly,
survivors, and the disabled.  Communal provision was not invented by
the New Deal; every society has practiced some form of it.  Social
Security was instituted during the New Deal years in order to
facilitate this communal provision, since the need for it was acute. 

There are many serious flaws in its implementation, such as the
regressive nature of the taxes.  But by and large people are not
aware of such subtleties, but only that it is supposed to provide
"security" for persons who are deemed to be entitled to it -- as
distinguished from welfare for the poor, who, according to the devout
belief of most Americans, are not owed a living by anyone, certainly
not by Joe Taxpayer.  In other words, J. Taxpayer believes that the
elderly and disabled *deserve* a portion of his income, while the
poor in general do not, although he is sometimes willing to give
charity to the poor, as God gives grace to us undeserving sinners.

Anyone with a serious interest in the effect of government in the US
on the distribution of income and wealth should read Benjamin Page's
book *Who Gets What From Government*.  This is outstanding:  thorough
and well written.  It contains surprises for most readers, but
especially for those who believe that government is engaged in some
kind of massive transfer of wealth from rich to poor in the US.  
-- 
Richard Carnes, ihnp4!gargoyle!carnes