While I am a strong fiscal conservative, I do believe liberals have a valid point here; it just isn't articulated clearly: The Social Security LAW is not contributing to the deficit, since revenues over the life of the program exceed expenditures; in short, it can't be the source of the problem since there is a dedicated tax to pay for it. Stated another way, Social Security is "paid for" because we made an accounting entry allocating specific revenues to cover it, even though those revenues aren't actually being used to cover it. This is essentially a normative argument disguised as an empirical argument. If I were a liberal, I simply argue that you shouldn't cut programs that raised sufficient taxes to pay for themselves simply because other programs were inadequately funded, but politicians realize that this kind of reasoning is lost on most voters; therefore, "Social Security is paid for" is the mantra.
Post a Comment