Social Security

---

Social Security is, as the name implies, essentially socialism. Because we don't officially approve of socialism we don't call it that, but that's still what it is. Social Security is certainly outside the limits of the Constitution. You don't fit something that big inside a penumbra.

Constitutional consideration aside, which it certainly is, I think if we're going to have it then Social Security should be limited to the intent implied by its full name- Social Security Insurance. As the program stands, it is essentially patronage writ on a grand scale. The net result is that money is taken from young people who may have very little and given to retirees who in some instances have a great deal. This is just crazy. Not crazy enough to so far overcome the iron politics, but still crazy.

Two words: "means testing".

And as long as we're on the subject, how many years do you think the first recipients of Social Security paid into the "trust fund"? Zero. That's because there really is no such thing as a "Social Security trust fund". Money goes into the government from some people and it comes out of the government to others. It's basically socialism disguised as a Ponzi scheme, though since we only means test the front end it actually winds up in many cases redistributing wealth upward. On the upside, there's no trust fund to go bankrupt. On the downside, the two sides of the equals sign are going to get steadily harder to balance as the population ages. Don't count on politicians to do the math.

Beyond this, the elderly shouldn't have to worry about whether or not some Congressman is going to decide they should or should not get their next check. If we're going to do it then it needs to be a properly codified Constitutional obligation, not an option. We should come up with a plan, draft the appropriate Constitutional amendment, ratify it, and settle the question.