At 23, Taxes Are For Me . . . And So Is Social Security

I have a couple of things to expound upon: (1) I saw Paul Krugman (Princeton economist, New York Times columnist, personal hero) and Michael Tanner (of the Cato Institute) debate Social Security and privatization last night; and (2) Maureen Dowd’s recent column on the lack of women columnists.

The debate was at the New York Society for Ethical Culture, which is running a whole series of discussions called “Ethical Edge.” The debate was very straightforward and no new arguments were brought to the table.

Some things I found irritating:

Tanner repeatedly spoke patronizingly to the audience, making those sarcastic and obvious jokes. For instance, “There will be a $12 trillion deficit. That is trillion—with a T.” Jokes are a great way to emphasize points and put dialogue in perspective. However, those tactics should be reserved for Comedy Central, not for the opening statement in a serious discussion.

He also described beneficiaries of Social Security and the citizenry at large in disparaging ways. Paraphrasing, he said people have to go to Congress “hat in hand” to claim their Social Security benefits, while the “doorman” would have the same chance to invest his money into private accounts as the person who owns the “duplex upstairs.” What is the point of these personalized stories in a discussion like this? The audience was a very particular demographic: people familiar enough with NYSEC to know that this program was happening and people interested enough (and probably already well-read) in Social Security and privatization to spend two hours after work listening to a discussion about it. Did he think that personalized stories would sway the audience one way or the other? I know what’s at stake; he does not need to tell me pity stories, such as the one about the 59-year-old widow with two grown children, who won’t get benefits from Social Security (um . . . that’s why they should work!).

If he wants the government to stop being patronizing towards its citizens and to allow them, instead, to make their own choices, can’t he do the same? Can’t he elevate the dialogue and speak to us as educated individuals? This should be a discussion of reason, not emotion.

Something that was touched upon, thanks to Krugman, is that private property is a social institution. I once read the very illuminating point (I believe it was made by ethicist Peter Singer) that we cannot have private property without government because it is the government that enables us to have our property. Among other things (such as protecting ports, enabling ships to come and go and thereby enabling trade), it protects against theft. Government is not evil; it is helpful.

Okay, so I’ve been hearing a smattering about women’s issues lately, probably due in part to the Los Angeles Times’s page of women columnists. I cannot say why there are not as many women columnists as men, but I can say that I will do my part to change that. This is Women’s History month! (Whatever that means . . . )