Government Checks

I was discussing social security with a friend on social media. I argued about the future solvency of the program and how I felt it should be privatized.

My friend pointed out since I am a retired Army officer drawing a retirement check that I was a hypocrite.

His reasoning being, if I was drawing a government check, how could I oppose someone else drawing a government check.

I know there is a fallacy in their somewhere.

In my view your friend’s assertion likely contains an implied non sequitur, i.e., falsely equating one type of government payment with another.

Potential privatization of Social Security is a complex issue. There are reasonable arguments, both pro and con. Simplifying greatly, on one side you have conceivable positive elements such as a significantly higher overall rate of return, due to investment in capital markets; individuals would also have in theory greater personal control over their invested dollars. On the other side, you are confronted with greater volatility in markets and the prospect of much lower or negative returns through a prolonged ‘down’ market. Additionally, it would arguably take trillions of dollars to put this system into effect, and the U.S. national debt is already at unprecedented levels.

Back to the proposed fallacy, Social Security and your army pension are two entirely distinct supplemental income payments, with completely different origins, assumptions and objectives. Their only apparent common denominator is that checks are each cut by the Federal Government (different branches). To implicitly equate them without establishing a nexus, then to draw conclusions from this manufactured nexus is a fallacy.

Your friend also stated: “…if I was drawing a government check, how could I oppose someone else drawing a government check.” This argument is specious because it lacks defining substance. A better, alternative argument could go something like “Why should the general public be subject to the vagaries of a fickle marketplace, while you are assured of receiving a regular fixed payment into perpetuity? This contention may also be debated, e.g., for reasons given above, but it serves to steer the discussion in a facts-based direction.