With this posting, I
finish my review of Magruder’s American
Government textbook.[1] The effort has been to pass judgment on
whether Magruder’s is more reflective
of natural rights values and principles in its portrayal of governance and
politics or whether it conveys more of a federalist bias. This blog contends that the prevailing mental
construct guiding the choice of content in our government and civics classrooms
is the natural rights construct. The
blog promotes the federalist theory construct for that purpose. I pick on Magruder’s
because it is the overwhelming choice of American high schools as the text that
teachers use in teaching American government.
As I have repeated often in this blog, one cannot overestimate how
reliant teachers are on the textbook they use when determining the content of their
courses.
In this final posting
on this concern, I have chosen to focus on how Magruder’s treats Social Security.
Why? I do so because I feel
Social Security is the most federalist of programs at the national level. Federalism, as I have described it, does put
an emphasis on local governance and politics.
It is at that level that individual citizens can get involved and make a
difference with policy choices. But at
the national level, the stakes are higher and draw the interest of more
well-funded factions which renders the average individual at a prohibitive
disadvantage. Social Security is no
exception to this general relationship.
But the way Social Security is structured makes it especially
“federal.” Let me explain.
Especially in its
retirement program, we have 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 of 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 federated citizens closer together – a higher sense of partnership among us
all. My problem with how we view it is
that few of us seem to understand this basic relationship. Instead, we hear 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 they paid in but
also more than what would be normal interest returns on those amounts. A healthy view of Social Security is to view
it as a by-product of ourselves being federated with each other and providing a
program that enhances 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 but
eliminated what used to be a chronic problem:
poverty among the elderly. I know
the program has certain financial challenges on the horizon and my purpose here
is not to discuss that. My only purpose
is to highlight the program as an essentially federalist approach to a vexing
problem: how do you take care of those
of us who can no longer work due to age?
So how does Magruder’s handle this program? Here’s what it has to report: on page 289, it informs students that
Congressional members are covered by Social Security; on page 44, it explains
that Social Security is designated as an independent agency and is not situated
structurally under one of the “Cabinet” departments; on page 460, it defines
the program as a social insurance program and that it is funded by a social insurance tax;
on page 461, it points out that the FICA tax is a regressive tax in that it is
a “flat” tax – everyone pays at the same percentage of income rate; and on page
469, the text explains that expenditures of the program are “uncontrollable” in
that they are entitlements and the monies are automatically issued. This, of course, is not exactly true – a point
the book makes – in that ultimately, expenditures can be controlled because
Congress can change the law and, in turn, determine how much the program would
pay in benefits. Of course, this course
of action would be highly unpopular and suicidal – career wise – for any
politician who attempted or promoted such a change.
In sum, in all that
describing and explaining of Social Security, one does not have the federalist
foundation of the program described, much less explained and, due to such
instruction, little is done to inform and encourage a more federalist
understanding of Social Security. This,
of course, enables in part the misunderstanding of the program alluded to
above.
So, overall, Magruder’s does little to promote a federalist
perspective. I would argue that,
instead, it promotes a natural rights view.
You are encouraged to look at the textbook yourselves and see if you
agree. If you get your hands on one,
easily obtained at any public high school, have a list of governmental
departments or agencies in mind; thumb back to the index and look up how that
part of the government is explained. You
can do the same thing for a particular program such as Social Security or
Medicare. Am I advocating to get rid of Magruder’s? Definitely not. I believe the book to be a good reference
book and that’s how it should function in the classroom. Whether one uses a federalist theory approach
or not, this text can be used as a “go-to” source for structural information
about our government. But it should not
be used to determine what the content of a government course should be.
No comments:
Post a Comment