Wrong! Wrong! Very Wrong!

I almost never read Robert J. Samuelson because he is basically one of those people that seems to read a few things then moves himself to expert status.   He’s one of many writers who seems to derive a livelihood by achieving intellectual dilletante status.  I couldn’t get pass this headline at his WAPO column: ‘Why Social Security is welfare’.  Why journalistic poseurs are allowed column space to promote so much wrong information is beyond me.

We don’t call Social Security “welfare” because it’s a pejorative term, and politicians don’t want to offend. So their rhetoric classifies Social Security as something else when it isn’t. Here is how I define a welfare program: First, it taxes one group to support another group, meaning it’s pay-as-you-go and not a contributory scheme where people’s own savings pay their later benefits. And second, Congress can constantly alter benefits, reflecting changing needs, economic conditions and politics. Social Security qualifies on both counts.

Samuelson is obviously confused. I wonder if he feels this way about every annuity investment sold by every insurance broker and bank in the country?  Social Security is a benefit that every worker pays for that is basically an insurance annuity set up to pay you back when you hit the stated conditions of the contract.  It has elements of insurance in it that is comparable to the government-sponsored flood insurance plan.  It has elements of a life annuity which is a similar contract that you can buy from any insurance broker.  You pay now and it pays you benefits in the future, again, when you meet the conditions of the annuity. It’s a form of longevity insurance.

Additionally, it is not means tested which means that receiving the annuity has nothing to do with your income.  It has to do with you joining the plan and paying the premiums as you work or as your parents or spouse works.  It is not a transfer payment which is the traditional form ‘welfare’ or safety net program. Transfer payments go to a beneficiary simply upon meeting certain criteria without ever having paid into the program directly.  Usually, transfer payments are means-tested which means they pay only to low income citizens. Transfer payments direct payments or services to people that don’t involve any exchange of goods and services for the benefit.  They are a one-way transfer of benefits and their main purpose is for income redistribution.  Social Security does not fall under this category at all.  If you or a qualifying family member don’t contribute to the program, you will not get your benefits.  Your benefits are also eventually based on what you contributed and not what your income says you need.  This is a huge difference.

You can read two other economics/finance writers who explain this in similar ways.  First, Economics professor Mark Thoma on Economist’s View explains the bad logic involved with this argument.  He also explains why Social Security is an insurance annuity and not a transfer payment in a similar way.

Social Security is no different, it is an insurance program against economic risk as I explain in this Op-Ed piece. Some people will live long lives and collect more than they contribute in premiums, some will die young and collect less. Some children will lose their parents and collect more than their parents paid into the system, others will not. But this does not make it welfare.

Is gambling welfare? Gambling transfers income from one person to another. Does that make it welfare? Loaning money transfers income when the loan is paid back with interest. Are people who receive interest income on welfare?

There is an important distinction between needing insurance ex-ante and needing it ex-post. Insurance does redistribute income ex-post, but that doesn’t imply that it was a bad deal ex-ante (i.e., when people start their work lives).

Angry Bear has made the same argument. (Both of these quotes are pretty old btw since Samuleson keeps rehashing this canard over and over and over.)  There is an example there of the basic insurance problem taught in finance classes in risk theory.  It shows why people basically buy insurance.  It also discusses the benefits of having insurance provided by the government when the private sector fails to provide the service.  Flood insurance and Longevity insurance make sure that people who have experienced those conditions do not become a burden on society and get shoved into the welfare system.  They pay premiums on each pay check–just as each of us do–to make sure that we don’t either outlive our incomes and wealth.

What does all of this have to do with Social Security? Those who are hard-working, fortunate, and not too profligate will have a large nest egg at retirement and Social Security will account for only a small portion of their retirement portfolio. This is tantamount to paying for insurance and then not needing it. This happens all the time — every year someone fails to get sick or injured and, while surely happy in their good health, would have been better off not buying insurance. That’s the nature of insurance: if you don’t need it, then you’ll always wish you hadn’t purchased it. Only in the context of retirement insurance is this considered a crisis.

On the other hand, those with bad luck or insufficient income will not have a nest egg at retirement. Because of Social Security, instead of facing the risk of zero income at retirement, they are guaranteed income sufficient to subsist.

This is precisely like the insurance example I worked through above: people with good outcomes will wish they hadn’t paid into the insurance fund; those with bad outcomes will be glad they did. Ex-ante, everyone benefits from the insurance. Overall, society is better off because risk is reduced; because people are risk-averse, the gains are quite large.

Additionally, Samuelson tries to force the Social Security program back into the federal deficit column when it is and was designed as a stand alone program. He also uses the current downturn–with its high and sustained rate of unemployment and hence, people NOT paying into social security at the moment–as an excuse to call the trust fund insolvent.  This is another canard.

Contrary to the Obama administration’s posture, Social Security does affect our larger budget problem. Annual benefits already exceed payroll taxes. The gap will grow. The trust fund holds Treasury bonds; when these are redeemed, the needed cash can be raised only by borrowing, taxing or cutting other programs. The connection between Social Security and the rest of the budget is brutally direct. The arcane accounting of the trust fund obscures what’s happening. Just as important, how we treat Social Security will affect how we treat Medicare and, to a lesser extent, Medicaid.

Dean Baker also calls Samuelson “inaccurate and misleading”. (h/t BostonBoomer)

It seems that for some reason he has a hard time understanding the idea of a pension. This shouldn’t be that hard, many people have them.

The basic principle is that you pay money in during your working years and then you get money back after you retiree. Social Security is a pension that is run through the government. Therefore Samuelson wants to call it “welfare.”

It is not clear exactly what his logic is. The federal government runs a flood insurance program. Are the payments made to flood victims under this program “welfare?” How about the people who buy government bonds. Are they getting “welfare” when they get the interest on their bonds? If there is any logic to Mr. Samuelson’s singling out Social Security as a source of welfare, he didn’t waste any space sharing it with readers.

There are a few other points that deserve comment. He claims that the trillions of dollars of surplus built up by the trust fund over the last three decades were an “accident.” Actually, this surplus was predicted by the projections available at the time. If anyone did not expect a large surplus to arise from the tax increases and benefit cuts put in place in 1983 then their judgement and arithmetic skills have to be seriously questioned.

In terms of the program and the deficit, under the law it can only spend money that came from its designated tax or the interest on the bonds held by the trust fund. It has no legal authority to spend one dime beyond this sum. In that sense it cannot contribute to the deficit. Mr. Samuelson apparently wants to use Social Security taxes to pay for defense and other spending.

Social Security coffers will see increased funding as long as people have jobs that pay more. Judging the cash inflows at a time when unemployment is unusually high and sustained is analysis aimed at pushing a political agenda.  It’s not a realistic view of the future stream of revenues.  The pot will replenish at a rate better than today simply by getting rid of the high unemployment rate and getting people into jobs with incomes that actually improve.  Consistently increasing the cap level by the rate of inflation would also provide an additional and reasonable source of funds.

I’ve written more than a few posts explaining the basics of social security.  It gets old when you have to repeat the same arguments to the same boneheads–like Samuelson–over and over.  I really don’t understand why some news outlets just seem to tolerate deliberate misinformation as ‘opinion’.  I certainly hope that some one with a similar sized readership will challenge Samuelson on his facts.  He plays fast and loose with them all the time.