New Jersey Governor Chris Christie, a Republican trying to gain traction in a crowded 2016 presidential field, on Tuesday proposed a major overhaul of the popular Social Security program for older Americans that would cut benefits for wealthy people.
At a New Hampshire appearance later on Tuesday, Christie plans to propose Social Security “means-testing” that would reduce the size of benefits for people earning more than $80,000 annually and phase them out entirely for those earning $200,000 or more.
“Do we really believe that the wealthiest Americans need to take from younger, hard working Americans to receive what, for most of them, is a modest monthly Social Security check?” Christie will say, according to excerpts of his remarks released by his staff. [reported by Thomson/Reuters and at Newsmax.com 4/14/15]
Christie’s idea reinforces and expands the underlying idea of the entitlement state: take from those who have more, and give to those who have less.
According to Christie, the purpose of government programs is to redistribute wealth. Given that assumption, his proposal makes perfect sense. Why are we “giving” money to people who make more than $200,000 a year when we could be giving it all to people who make less?
However, Social Security was never sold as a welfare or charity program. To this day, when Social Security is attacked or questioned, its defenders insist that it’s a retirement or “insurance” program. Some call it “social insurance,” meaning an insurance program administered by the government.
Of course, these are false claims. Insurance policies, by definition, refer to voluntary membership. People willingly join an insurance program or policy because they expect the benefits to be worth the cost they choose to pay in premiums, over time. Or, perhaps they prefer the peace of mind of having a policy (as with housing or flood insurance), even if they never recover the benefits that would be equal to paying into the program in the first place.
Social Security is not voluntary, and never was. It’s not insurance, by this standard. (I recognize that almost nothing is voluntary in our heavily regulated society, any longer; but the principle behind insurance is that of voluntary membership.)
Also, when you pay into a normal insurance program, you get your benefits. The people who make $201,000 a year were forced to hand over their payroll taxes just as compellingly as those who make $199,000 a year, or $50,000 a year.
If a private, real insurance program told its members, upon time to legitimately claim their benefits that, “You make too much money, so you don’t need the benefits now,” that insurance company would – properly – be denounced and put out of business as a fraud.
If Social Security really isn’t an “insurance” program – and of course it never was – then its proponents ought to at least be forced to admit that it’s a welfare/entitlement program.
Chris Christie is dropping the pretense here. He’s taking it for granted that Social Security is, always was, and always will be a wealth redistribution program. He does not say or imply this is a bad thing. Quite the contrary – he wants to extend this principle of wealth redistribution in ways that Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton have not (yet) proposed.
Let’s say I’m a 20-something or 30-something year-old seeking to succeed and make a lot of money. The next logical question here is: If I end up making a lot of money – defined here as more than $200,000 a year – then I won’t be able to gain any of this Social Security benefit. So why should I be forced to pay the taxes required to support this so-called insurance program?
And by what moral standard of “fairness” am I punished for precisely the extent to which I succeed?
Chris Christie’s probable answer – logically, the only honest answer he could give here – would be, “Well, you are your brother’s keeper. If you do better, you must take care of those who don’t make as much.”
What if I make more money because I’m more productive and effective at what I do?
“Well,” the socialist Christie will say, “you are responsible to those who have less, or who produce less. You are your brother’s keeper.”
When you scratch the surface, the Republicans are no different from the Democrats. This is because they subscribe to the same underlying moral ideology as the Democrats. In fact, they might even be more consistent about it.
You are your brother’s keeper, and government has the right to enforce this idea. This is the same thing that Obama claims nearly every day, and puts into practice with every executive edict he issues. Hillary Clinton will exploit this guilt-fostering mentality as well. Exactly why do we have a Republican party, then? We already get this from the Democrats, in spades.
Unless or until Republicans change their underlying moral premise, their policies will never change. And it won’t really matter if they’re in office, or not.
Or, as Karl Marx phrased it: From each according to his ability; to each according to his need.
Chris Christie shows us the Marxist side of Republicans.
Be sure to “friend” Dr. Hurd on Facebook. Search under “Michael Hurd” (Rehoboth Beach DE). Get up-to-the-minute postings, recommended articles and links, and engage in back-and-forth discussion with Dr. Hurd on topics of interest. Also follow Dr. Hurd on Twitter at @MichaelJHurd1