[Note: If
the reader has taken up reading this blog with this posting, he/she is helped
by knowing that this posting is the next one in a series of postings. The series begins with the posting, “The Natural Rights’ View
of Morality” (February 25, 2020, https://gravitascivics.blogspot.com/2020/02/the-natural-rights-view-of-morality.html).
Overall, the series addresses how the study of political science has
affected the civics curriculum of the nation’s secondary schools. Part of that influence is how the discipline
helps guide civics textbook writers.]
In the current effort this
blog has pursued, to gather evidence of how the leading American government
textbooks treat their subject matter, it will next examine how each text deals with
a specific federal government program.
The basic question this review asks is whether the books reflect a
guidance from a natural rights view or a federalist view. This posting looks at how the textbooks describe
and explain the Social Security program.
Since
social capital[1]
promotes qualities related to interpersonal interactions, it puts an emphasis
on local governance and politics. As
mentioned earlier in this blog, it is at that level that individual citizens
can get involved and make a difference with policy choices. This writer chooses Social Security because
he feels it is the most interpersonal program at the national level.
But
at the national level, the stakes are higher and draw the interest of more
well-funded factions which put the average individual at a disadvantage. Social Security is no exception to this
general relationship, but the way it is structured makes it especially
interpersonal in a certain way.
To
explain, especially in its retirement program, there is one segment of the
population providing for another. Those
young enough to work pay their FICA[2]
tax and that, in turn, is used to pay for the benefits targeted primarily to
the older generation that is now retired.
When the young grow older and retire, they will get the benefit from
those who are younger and are working.
In
other words, the program is an intergenerational compact and that structural
provision binds the interests of all citizens closer together – a higher sense
of partnership among all. A problem exists
in how many people view the program in this way. Seemly, few understand this basic
relationship. Instead, one hears retired
folks claim they are entitled to the benefit because they paid into it all
their working years, as if those payments correspond to a forced savings
program.
Few
understand that those who live a normal life span will probably receive more in
benefits than not only what they paid into the program, but also more than what
would be derived from normal interest returns on those amounts. A healthier view of Social Security would be shared
if people in general saw the program as a by-product of being partnered with
each other that allows this program to enhance the common welfare.
Social
Security, for example, allows younger workers to go about their lives without
being so concerned for the financial status of their parents. And Social Security has almost eliminated
what used to be a chronic problem:
poverty among the elderly. The
program has certain financial challenges on the horizon and the purpose here is
not to discuss those. The purpose is to
highlight the program as an essentially interpersonal approach to a vexing
problem: how does one take care of those
who can no longer work due to age?
What
follows gives the reader a rundown of how Magruder’s (2019 edition)[3]
and Glencoe (2010 edition)[4]
inform the student of this very federalist program.
Magruder’s:
·
On pages 632-633, the program is
explained through the taxing arrangement that collects the funds to finance its
operation. That explanation identifies a
common term, payroll taxes, that is associated with this taxing program. The text mentions the funding concerns in the
future, but also adds that some economists claim that that problem is
overstated. It also mentions that the
taxes, based on a fixed rate, is regressive (people of lower income pay a
higher percentage of their income to meet their FICA obligation).
·
On page 636, the program is identified
as an “entitlement” program – a program that is automatically legislated to be
paid and does not depend on renewing legislation. Along with this relatively independent
funding, it is run by an independent agency – it is not housed under a cabinet
level department. The expenditures of
the program in 2016 amounted to $916 billion, second largest expenditure amount
of any federal government program. The
text does mention the concern over what is termed “uncontrolled spending.” While this is a legitimate issue, it does
reflect natural rights thinking.
Glencoe
·
On pages 590-592, the text identifies
the program’s existence as an example of a Social Insurance program. This account is situated under an accounting
of the general consequences brought about by the Great Depression of the
1930s. The eight-line description
outlines the general parameters of the program.
Beyond that, under a subheading, “Changing the System,” the text relates
the financial challenges the program has faced.
Included are possible solutions to those challenges, especially as one considers
the heightened problems relating to the large “baby-boomer” generation retiring. Quoting two opposing views, one by Peter G.
Peterson and the other by Henry J. Aaron, the text attempts to give the student
“both sides” of the issue concerning the financial health of the program.
·
On page 556, the text explains social
insurance taxes, which include FICA. This
explanation describes not only Social Security’s retirement program but also
its unemployment insurance component. It
does not mention the role state governments play in this latter program. It also mentions anticipated financial
challenges – not directly but by implication – and how the taxes to fund the
program are regressive.
Neither account even
hints at the federalist quality of the program but leaves the student with a
very real sense the program might not survive.
To
be clear, Social Security is a socialist program, but one that can be justified
under federalist moral thinking.[5] And one point of clarification. In describing the program as an entitlement
program and run independently from renewing legislation that does not mean it
cannot be changed or eliminated by Congress.
Congress can change the law and in turn, determine how much the program
will pay in benefits or even if the program will continue.
Of
course, to end or significantly lower payouts would be highly unpopular and even
suicidal – career wise – for any politician who attempted or promoted such a
change – Social Security, as it stands, is that popular. Another qualifier concerning the above
reports should be added. Apparently,
thinking over the national debt has changed – it seems it is not considered to
be so dire as it once was.
Perhaps,
due to very low interest rates, debt in general does not have the urgency it
once had. In addition, the debt
mushroomed under the leadership of the party that most complains about it. That would be the Republican Party. It caused the passage of the latest tax cut
when it controlled both houses of Congress and the Presidency. As a result, the national debt kept growing
at the pace the last presidential administration experienced[6]
and, in turn, has undermined its stated concerns.
In
sum, with all that describing and explaining Social Security, Magruder and Glencoe do not
describe the interpersonal or intergenerational foundation of the program, much
less explain it. That is, little is done
to inform and encourage a more partnered view of Social Security. This, of course, enables in part the
misunderstanding of the program alluded to above.
So,
overall, these textbooks in their
review of the Social Security program do little to promote social
capital. Instead, they promote a natural
rights view. One is encouraged to look
at the textbook and see if the reader agrees.
The nearest high school is bound to have a copy of one of them to peruse. The reader can go armed with a list of
governmental departments or agencies in mind and thumb back to the index and
look up how that part of the government is explained. One can also do the same thing for a
particular program such as Social Security or Medicare.
So
again, what this blog reports reflects how deficient the popular texts are when
judged by federalist standards. Is this
an argument to get rid of these textbooks?
Definitely not. They are a good
reference books and that’s how they should function in the classroom. Whether one uses an approach that attempts to
bolster social capital, civic humanism, and/or civic virtue or not, these texts
can be used as “go-to” sources for structural and procedural information about the
government.
But
it should not be used to determine what the curricular content of a government
course should be. The next posting will summarize the
writer’s review how each textbook describes and explains government and
politics by reporting on a random selection of citations from each text. Again, that review will utilize Magruder’s
2019 edition and Glencoe’s 2010 edition.
The writer analyzes the citations to determine the language the books use;
is it a natural rights language or a federalist language?
[1] Reminder: social capital,
as a societal quality, is characterized by having an active, public-spirited
citizenry, egalitarian political relations, and a social environment of trust
and cooperation. See Robert D. Putnam, Bowling
alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community (New York, NY: Simon & Schuster, 2000).
[4] Glencoe United
States Government: Democracy in Action (New York,
NY: McGraw-Hill/Glencoe, 2010).
[5] For a rationale, the reader might look at the
writer’s book, Toward a Federated Nation, and its accounting of
equality. He based that argument on the
work of Philip Selznick. See Robert
Gutierrez, Toward
a Federated Nation: Implementing
National Civics Standards (Tallahassee, FL:
Gravitas/Civics Books, 2020) AND Philip Selznick, The Moral Commonwealth: Social
Theory and the Promise of Community (Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 1992).
[6] In 2016 the national debt was $19.9 trillion. The national debt as of May 2020 is nearly
$25 trillion. The projection of the debt
took a significant upturn to meet the challenges of the Great Recession that
began in 2008. By 2017 though, the
health of the economy had greatly improved and federal expenditures to fight
the recession resided. Another point to
consider is how wealthy is the American economy; can that economy sustain such
high debt levels? According to a
Wikipedia report, the overall wealth of the country as of 2019 is estimated to
be nearly $106 trillion – is that rich enough to afford a $25 trillion dollar
debt by the nation’s government? Of
course, that doesn’t include private debt.
As of 2019, private debt (household plus business) is $31.2 trillion for
a total debt of $52.4 trillion or 248% of GDP ($21 trillion). See, among various articles, David F. Perkis,
“Making Sense of Private Debt,” Economic Research/Federal Reserve Bank
of St. Louis, March 2020, accessed June 4, 2020, https://research.stlouisfed.org/publications/page1-econ/2020/03/02/making-sense-of-private-debt .
No comments:
Post a Comment