|
Responsibility #76
To the People of the United States of America:
6th postscript, April 1994. We continue the examination, begun in the three previous essays, of a medley of news articles. These articles concerned taxes and appropriations advocated, proposed, and/or enacted, by individuals, legislative or administrative bodies, up to the President. The time period is the terms to date of President Clinton, and the 103rd Congress. The discussions demonstrate how decidedly our country continues to avoid the lessons of history, at the risk of dire eventualities.
4. We continue the rebuttal of the statement (in the editorial of April 10, 1994, entitled "Journalists look at who pays taxes"), that Social Security (SS) taxes are regressive. We were at the point of discussing the applicability of the term "premiums", for the portions of SS contributions, that cover the survivor and disability income features.
The inclusion of survivors' benefits (life insurance?), and disability benefits (disability income insurance?), with the retirement feature of SS further muddies the water. It creates further inequities and violations of "property rights".
Although the "premiums" are not different, only those participants who have spouses and children who qualify, merit survivors' benefits; and the extent of those benefits, vary with the passage of time. Contrast this with a "savings and investment" program, where the value of the account goes to designated (whoever) beneficiaries, or the estate of the participant, if he dies before depletion of his account. The situation would be similar for life or annuity insurance policies.
The disabilities benefits feature proved early on to be a disaster, from the standpoint of adequacy of government administration, and protection of "property rights". During President Nixon's administration, to attack perceived large scale abuses of the feature (and as a partial solution to the soaring costs of the overall SS program), the government sought to tighten the application of eligibility standards. The SS administration was given additional funding, to make a one-time review of all past disability awards, and to make more frequent reviews to see if those receiving benefits still qualified.
This triggered flurries of court cases by those denied benefits. The courts found against the government, in the lion's share of cases, saying in effect: "You once found these people eligible, you cannot change the interpretation of your standards". Egged on by attorneys (some of whom advertise as former "Social Security judges"), large numbers of denials of benefits are challenged in the courts to this date. Often the court findings require the government to come up with substantial lump sums to cover past years of non-payments.
A Parade magazine article (April 3, 1994) gives us insight, into the government's solution to this challenge. Parade asked a government waste watchdog group, to report on the worst use of taxpayers' dollars in President Clinton's "lean and mean" (his words) budget for 1995.
"That group singled out the $1.7 billion (or 7.5%) increase in funding for a $26 billion program called Supplemental Security Income, or SSI, saying it was rife with fraud and scandalously mismanaged.
The program was developed in 1974 to assist people unable to work because of medically certified disabilities, which include alcoholism and drug addiction. SSI assistance comes as a cash benefit from the Social Security Administration. In cases where eligibility was first denied, it may come retroactively in a lump sum up to $20,000."
Thus the Presidents and the Congresses, in order to comply with the re-legislation of the Judiciary, have indeed made the disability income feature of the SS program a welfare program. Note that the welfare is not necessarily limited to, or directed at, the poor or near poor. The Parade article goes on to say: "But sometimes this money just goes for more drugs or booze. A new report by the General Accounting Office reveals that $1.4 billion went to 250,000 addicts and alcoholics in 1993."
Contrast this with how the insurance industry administers disability income insurance. First the application process would identify the degree of risk of each intended participant. In particular, by interview and medical tests, alcohol and drug abusers would be identified. They would either be denied coverage or charged higher premiums. Second, if the industry found that revenues were not covering the costs of the program, including the effects of any court findings, they would change policies to exclude unprofitable applicants.
Clearly calling the portion of SS contributions, that apply to the disability income feature, "premiums" would be grossly misleading.
Finally should SS contributions be referred to as "taxes"? NO!
Since the days of antiquity, taxes and tax collectors have been bad words. If governments established and adhered to inviolable principles for taxation and appropriations, designed to achieve "justice for all" and respect for "property rights", that connotation would be alleviated if not eliminated.
As presently constituted, the SSS falls far short of those design criteria. However, the intents of the program are very meritorious. These are that through the compensation of wage earners, provision will be made for some degree of: (1) income in retirement years, (2) income for surviving spouses and minor children, and (3) income for the workers while totally disabled.
These government "mandates" are not "bad", and they could as well (better!!!) be accomplished outside of government. It is a mistake to consider SS contributions as "taxes". It is a mistake for politicians and others (including the journalists who wrote the quoted April 10, 1994 editorial) to toss Social Security in the same pot as income taxes. It is erroneous to call Social Security "regressive".
What should be done about the frailties and inequities of the Social Security System? In earlier RESPONSIBILITY papers inviolable principles for taxes and appropriations were developed. These were applied to the several facets of the SS program. To recap the resultant recommendations:
1. For those not in or near retirement, make a transition from Social Security to a mandated savings and investments minimum retirement program.
2. If there is to be a government mandate for minimum survivor benefits, let it be accomplished through the insurance industry.
3. If there is to be a government mandate for minimum disability income benefits, let it also be through the insurance industry.
4. All of these mandates would be consistent with, and justified by, a firm national commitment to end poverty, providing a true safety net for all residents of the United States.
A case study of the Social Security System has many lessons to be heeded, when considering a federal mandate for a Health Plan. Mr. and Mrs. President and Congress please "listen-up"!
A later essay under this 6th postscript will further address the Health Care issue.
Publius IV
|