It occurs to me that an unstated premise of the government debt debate is that bond holders have a morally superior claim on future tax revenues than do social security annuitants.
If this is so, I think it has something to do with a philosophical mindset that values rights concerning property above other sorts of rights. But, I haven’t quite worked out the details yet.
I see it from the standpoint that I’m forced to pay into social security, but I can choose to buy a bond.
Somehow, I’m less annoyed by someone taking my money & not paying me back vs someone that I willingly give money to not paying me back.
I’m not saying you’re wrong, Jason; but that sort of analysis necessarily leads to a preference for those with disposable income. They inevitably have more choices.
One thing about Social Security: yes it’s forced, but it’s also protected from your creditors.
I’m pretty sure the president and his cronies are the only ones stabbing at this ridiculous, disingenuous straw man. I understand your interest in such ethereal philosophy, but it’s a moot point because the premise of the whole talking point is so completely flawed at its core. Servicing the interest on the debt requires 6% of our tax revenue. Not really a catastrophic over which we should be scaring the shit out of our state-dependent seniors. I’m confident our legislators have the brain power to manage the problem. I think. If keeping our SS recipients bankrolled is our highest priority as the White House suggests, they should get busy slashing the superfluous bullshit from the budget.
I despise blogging from a mobile device. Apologies for the hacked-up autocorrected grammar.
I’m not saying I’m right, Doug. :) Just my gut reaction.
Personally, I would rather pay into social security even if I get no payback myself if that means that we don’t have 80 year old people who had their pension evaporated by a failed company begging for bread.
However, I still feel strongly that churches like mine should be doing a good enough job taking care of those people that there is no need for the government to do it, but that isn’t reality at the moment.
I am not sure why you say “that an unstated premise of the government debt debate is that bond holders have a morally superior claim on future tax revenues than do social security annuitants” but is it possible the answer isn’t moral, and is instead constittutional?
I assume you know that the 14th Amendment contains the following: “The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. ” I am not sure SS counts as “public debt”, but I know bonds do.
Jason, I have no problem with churches or other organizations offering assistance, but the problem with trusting churches to do the job instead of the government is that churches (or charitable organizations in general for that matter) are susceptible to applying litmus tests to those seeking assistance. as an example, I remember reading a story fairly recently about a religious-run homeless shelter that refused to allow gays or lesbians entry.
Granted, if I was the 80 year old needing food or shelter you mentioned, I’d endure the proselytizing so long as it meant that I wouldn’t starve or die of exposure, but should anyone have to if the government can provide assistance in a neutral fashion, i.e. to all who qualify regardless of their beliefs/orientation/ethnicity, etc?
Paul,
I’ve not yet heard a discussion along the lines of, “Social Security recipients have an equal or better claim to bond holders, but the Constitution won’t allow us to arrange our priorities in that fashion.” In fact, I haven’t heard a lot of discussion at all about whether or why bond holders have a superior claim to future tax revenues; just an assumption that we were much more likely to cut Social Security payments before cutting bond payments.
I guess I don’t understand your use of the word “claim”. To me, a claim is a statement that something is definitely owed to you, but that isn’t true with Social Security. Congress can pass a law and change/eliminate social security obligations with 350 yea votes (give or take). This is not true with treasury bonds, which are contractual and cannot be disavowed because of the 14th amendment. To me, it seems obvious that the tentative and permissive claim to social security is less than the automatic claim to bond proceeds.
I agree that it seems obvious that the claim to bond proceeds is superior to that of social security claims. My argument – or at least the idea I’m playing around with – is that it appears that way because we prioritize property rights over other kinds of rights. And, maybe we ought to have that kind of priority because that’s the best way to run a civilized society. But, it seems worth thinking about whether that priority is justified and whether that is the best way to run a society.
But, at the end of the day, mostly just philosophical wankery.
Mike, my point is that the churches should be providing that care first, not waiting for the government to get out of their way. Jesus didn’t apply a litmus test in that manner. It makes me sick to know that some churches would hold back aid like that, but I know it is true.
In other words, the churches should already be taking care of *everyone* that needs help like this, so there is no one left for the government to help. I’m not saying the government should back off and hope the churches take care of things. Big difference.
Bondholders are not, by law, first. They could totally pay SS before the bondholders. But that would be a default, and there would be serious consequences.
There are many things that we could do to pay bondholders AND Social Security. We did them in the ’95 and ’96 shutdowns.
I agree with Buzz, it’s no so much that we HAVE to pay the creditors, but if we don’t, then no one else is going to give us money, which means all the services run out of money and everything stops because it’s all linked together. It’s more of an”interconnected of all things” problem…
I wonder what number of trillions we would need to run the government if we really DID cut all but the most essential services. And if we did that would the economy collapse before we could raise the tax revenue to pay for it.
I really need a better grasp on the economics and amounts of it all. I think that’s why the rhetoric is working so well for both sides, no normal citizenone really understands it and the metaphors don’t really do e problem justice…
That said, it is all wankery. This will get passed and probably in a way that it’s a political wash, as far as 2012 is concerned…
And I agree with Andrew. Autocorrct is the devil…