Balance Beams and the Social Safety Net
Any honest assessment of our nation’s financial situation will determine that it is untenable. Spending by all levels of government exceeds revenue by as much as 40 percent. At the federal level, 53% of the budget is represented by Social Security, Medicare and other assistance programs. If we are to reign-in federal spending, as at some point we will be forced to, some reduction of these programs will be necessary. However, we should keep in mind that there are human as well as financial costs associated with these programs.
Welfare programs such as Social Security and Medicaid are often defended as being a kind of “social safety-net” put in place to assist those who are unable or incapable of helping themselves. President Ronald Reagan, no friend to intrusive and expansive government, said in his first inaugural address, “How can we love our country, and not love our country-men? And loving them, reach out a hand when they fall?” In any society there are those who, through no fault of their own, fall onto hard times and are rendered incapable of rising again without some outside assistance. And it is a reasonable measure of a society how it responds to these unfortunates. Safety nets however, should be judged not just by the protection they provide, but by the danger they help avert.
Imagine a balance beam set two feet above the ground. Not many people would refuse to cross it, and those who did cross would do so blithely, unconcerned by the risks of their failure. A net under such a hazard would seem silly and unnecessary. Now raise that beam to twelve feet. A significant number of people would now refuse to cross it. Those that did cross would tread carefully, watching their footing, and they would feel some relief when the task was done. An argument for a safety net here is more compelling, but it could still be argued that it is not needed. Now imagine that beam raised to two hundred feet. Only a very few would even dare mount it. Many who found themselves on that lofty height would turn back, unsure of their ability to cross safely. Those few who did cross would do so trepidatiously, placing each step just so, ever mindful of the consequences of even a single misstep. People finding themselves in such a situation would be greatly comforted by the idea that there is something down below to cushion them should they stumble.
The story of welfare in America over the past century is one of a steady lowering of that beam, and a steady broadening of that net. As consequences have diminished, the rush to cross has grown. Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, SSI, SSDI, Aid to Dependant Children, the list goes on. Even the rise in abortions can be traced back to the steady lowering of that beam. According to Steven D. Levitt and Stephen J. Dubner, in their book Freakanomics, after the Roe v. Wade decision in 1973, conceptions rose by 30 percent, but birth declined by 6. The consequences of falling off the beam were reduced, so more people went trotting across.
The gradual growth in the size and scope of these programs is well documented. A December 12th article in the Boston Globe chronicles the expansion of SSI, or Supplemental Security Income. The author traces the expansion of the program from it’s initial goal, to provide supplemental income to parents raising special needs to children, to it’s current incarnation, a racket where parents drug their unruly children to receive an extra annual income of up to $30,000. And SSI is not an exceptional program, only an illustrative one.
As fiscal reality forces us as a nation to confront the soaring costs of social programs, we should keep that balance beam in mind. There is a way to reduce the cost of government while still protecting those in our society who truly need that protection. The key is to raise the beam. Make it more arduous to access such programs by tightening our requirements for them, and reexamine what exactly are the costs to our citizenry if the safety nets are removed.
The difference between discomfiture and disconsolation is a significant one, but this distinction is too often ignored by those who promote greater access to programs designed to assist the truly needy. We must never forget that it is those who are most in need that will suffer the greatest harm if we ignore fiscal reality. We cannot continue to insist that those who cross a balance beam two feet above the ground are at the same risk as those perched at two hundred feet. We must tighten our nets to ensure that if they fall, we will be able to catch them.
