MAGRUDER ON SOCIAL SECURITY

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.

---

[1] McClenaghan, W. A.  (2013).  Magruder’s American Government (Florida Teacher’s Edition).  Boston, MA:  Prentice Hall/Pearson.

[2] FICA stands for Federal Insurance Contributions Act.

MAGRUDER ON PRACTICAL CONCERNS OF CITIZENSHIP

I am in the midst of reviewing a selection of inserts found in the American government textbook, Magruder’s American Government.[1]  Because this text is the overwhelming choice of government educators around the country and due to the reliance teachers place on textbooks, a look at Magruder’s is a good way to find out what content is being taught in those government classes.  To date, I have reviewed three of those inserts:  “letters to the editor,” “political campaigns,” and “volunteering.”  The series of inserts is meant to give practical advice to students who might be interested in involving themselves.  In general, the tone of these inserts cannot be interpreted as any hard sell on engaging in these activities – there is mention in one of them of obligation to be engaged, but that is as close to “selling” citizen participation as these inserts get.  In the main, they take on the tone of addressing a student who might already be inclined to an activity such as writing a letter to an editor.  I have indicated that judged by federalist standards, the inserts fall far short of being adequate; instead, they work quite nicely if one adheres to natural rights values.[2]

The remaining inserts I have looked at are:  “political roots and attitudes,” “voting,” and “writing to public officials.”  The most interesting of these is “political roots and attitudes,” the most useful and practical is “writing to public officials,” and the most disturbing is “voting.”  None of them, with the exception of one, give what I deem incorrect information, and they all are straightforward efforts to convey information.  None are an attempt to encourage the activity highlighted.

I found the “political roots” insert interesting in that it has students construct an opinion poll questionnaire on one of three issues: national debt, environment, and the economy.  While not making any effort to review what opinions are currently talked about concerning these issues, the insert seems to assume the student has some previously held beliefs and biases.  The concern is more about how to determine what classmates might feel about the chosen issue.  The information does not include any list of dos and don’ts concerning how to write an opinion questionnaire, other than to be neutral, but perhaps a teacher using the inserts can “springboard” into having students research the techniques that professionals use in such efforts.

The one disturbing bit of “information” found in any of the three inserts is in the “voting” insert.  There, voting is described as a privilege, not a right.  While voting is not a natural right, it is a civil right – a right created by law.  When one considers the sacrifices African-Americans and women and, in some countries, non-propertied workmen made to get those laws allowing them to vote,  referring to voting as a privilege is a bit disheartening.  Hopefully, there is no sinister motive in using this language.

The insert dedicated to writing to a public official is the most useful.  It gives good advice about how to structure any letter or email that a constituent might write so as to be more effective.  In so doing, the tone immediately becomes more encouraging.  It even mentions how politicians are more influenced by a voter, considering the effort such an activity might entail.  Given that a voter is willing to go to that length, he or she is probably someone who is willing to encourage others to hold similar opinions to those expressed in the letter or email.  Each of them, in turn, might be persuaded to vote in a certain way and as a result, that might affect the politician’s future success in keeping his/her job.

Overall, though, the effects of these inserts mirror those previously reviewed.  In terms of encouraging communal participation or social capital – the societal quality characterized by having an active, public-spirited citizenry, egalitarian political relations, and a social environment of trust and cooperation – the inserts are woefully lacking.

In my next posting, I will look at Magruder’s treatment of the Social Security program.  Earlier, I identified the program as one that is fundamentally based on federalist principles, at least as those principles are defined in this blog.  As such, a text’s treatment of the program, I feel, would give good insight as to how the material reflects either federalist or natural rights values and principles.

---

[1] McClenaghan, W. A.  (2013).  Magruder’s American Government (Florida Teacher’s Edition).  Boston, MA:  Prentice Hall/Pearson.

[2] For those of you who are new to this blog, the blog has dedicated a lot of space to explaining the difference between federalist values and natural rights values.