This month marks the 79th anniversary of Social Security and the program’s finances are in disarray. The numbers are jarring. Social Security faces $23.1 trillion in unfunded liabilities, according to the program’s trustees, and if nothing changes, by 2033, payments will have to be cut by almost a quarter. The longer we wait to act, the more circumscribed our options will be.
The moral foundation of the welfare state is altruism: the doctrine that we have a duty to sacrifice for the needs of others. (See my interviews with Onkar Ghate and Peter Schwartz.) If you want to get a real sense of the meaning of this doctrine and its implications for human life, the best source is Ayn Rand. But Rand is often accused of caricaturing altruism.
The S&P recently came out with a report on how inequality is allegedly dampening economic growth. If you’re following the debate over Thomas Piketty’s book Capital in the Twenty-First Century, don’t miss this analysis from the Tax Foundation or this article from Don Boudreaux.
In his latest op-ed on Politix.topics.com, “Is Obamacare Here to Stay?,” ARI fellow Don Watkins asks: What does the history of Social Security tell us about the future of Obamacare?
On the July 16 edition of Coffee & Markets, Brad Jackson and Allysen Efferson had me on to discuss my new book on Social Security, how FDR’s program has hurt American self-reliance, and my End the Debt Draft campaign.
Over at the American Enterprise Institute blog, James Pethokoukis takes me to task for opposing a government "safety net," i.e., for advocating the total abolition of the welfare state.
Paul Ryan just released a plan to reform the welfare state in order to encourage work and upward mobility. Ryan has long been worried that our “safety net” has become a “hammock,” lulling people into long-term dependency and punishing them for working: many poor Americans can actually lose money by getting a job and forgoing whatever handouts they were previously eligible for.
Let me share something with you that’s a little personal. One of the greatest sources of joy in my life is my one-year-old daughter, and my wife and I are eager — that’s too weak a word, actually — to have another kid. But we simply cannot afford to.
Paul Krugman doesn’t think that you can read. Or, at any rate, he doesn’t think you’ll bother to read the most recent long-term economic outlook from the Congressional Budget Office.
