Who Could Be Against "Fairness"?

From the folks who gave us the "Inflation Reduction Act", we now have the "Social Security Fairness Act". My state's senior senator is in a rush to dole out (additional) taxpayer cash to the "dedicated". And also to dance at the behest of her union puppet masters:

Let's make that passage swift! The swifter the better!

The WSJ editorialists have a more jaundiced view: it's A GOP Gift for Randi Weingarten.

Republicans claim to want to reduce the budget deficit, but then why are they joining Democrats in raiding Social Security for nearly $200 billion in extra benefits for government workers?

The House last month passed the misnamed Social Security Fairness Act, 327-75. Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer vowed at a rally with union leaders last week to hold a vote on the bill this week. “What’s happening to you is unfair, un-American,” Mr. Schumer declared to cheers from teachers union chief Randi Weingarten.

What’s unfair is rewarding high-paid government workers with larger Social Security benefits than they earned. That’s essentially what the bill would do.

But Reason's Eric Boehm has had it up to here [imagine me holding my palm horizontally about eight inches over my head] with talk about "fairness": Social Security is deeply unfair. The Social Security Fairness Act won't fix that. He shares some of the irate comments he received about his previous article about the legislation (Senate tees up $200 billion Social Security giveaway to public sector workers, also recommended).

Ultimately, these sentiments reveal more about the flaws of Social Security than they do about any notion of fairness.

Indeed, any conversation about the fairness of Social Security has to start by acknowledging how unfair the whole scheme is. Workers aren't given the choice to opt out. Younger, generally poorer workers are currently funding the retirements of older, generally wealthier beneficiaries. Most retirees receive significantly more in Social Security benefits than what they contributed during their careers. Is any of that fair?

The Social Security Fairness Act would increase payments to some retirees—and those retirees unsurprisingly see that as the fair outcome. However, it will cost the average couple $25,000 in lost benefits over the long term by accelerating the program's insolvency, according to an analysis by the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget. Is that fair?

Eric's bottom line:

But, then, they should be honest about what's happening. This isn't an attempt to make anything more or less fair. It's just a politically powerful special interest group trying to grab a bigger slice of the pie for its members.

Also of note:

  • My washer is covered, except… I just signed up to extend my warranty on my LG clothes washer.

    I did this, even though I know extended warranties are ripoffs.

    I did this even though my past experience with LG repair service found it to be slow and tedious.

    And I did this even though the service contract I agreed to has a daunting list of twenty-six things that are not covered. I was especially impressed by:

    1. Breakdown caused by acts of God or other disaster (whether natural, man-made, local or catastrophic), abuse, acts of war, civil disorders, corrosion, dirt, mold, earthquake, fire, hail, insects or other animals, liquid immersion, malicious mischief, misuse, negligence, nuclear accident, riot, rust, sand, smoke, storm, terrorist attack, vandalism, and wind;

    Yes, in the event the Seabrook reactor (only 30 crow-flies miles away) decides to target my washer with a fatal blast of radiation, I'm out of luck.

  • We're number… 17!? Cato has issued this year's edition of the Human Freedom Index, comparing the liberty enjoyed (or not) by the inhabitants of 165 jurisdictions around the world. It "uses 86 distinct indicators of personal and economic freedom" in the areas of

    • Rule of law
    • Security and safety
    • Movement
    • Religion
    • Association, assembly, and civil society
    • Expression and information
    • Relationships
    • Size of government
    • Legal system and property rights
    • Sound money
    • Freedom to trade internationally
    • Regulation

    That about covers it, right?

    Spoiler: the USA is tied with the United Kingdom for 17th place. Ahead of us, freedom-wise: Switzerland, New Zealand, Denmark, Luxembourg, Ireland, Finland, Sweden, Iceland, Australia, Estonia, Canada, Norway, Japan, Germany, Netherlands, and Czechia.

    It would be nice if the incoming administration made it a goal to move us up in the rankings. Are you telling me we can't out-freedom Canada?

  • This is probably the best argument that can be made. That incoming administration (Trump II: Sacre Bleu) has indicated that they want to get rid of our twice-a-year clock fiddling. Nate Silver, a serious thinker, disagrees, thinking we should Save Daylight Savings Time.

    Last week, President-elect Trump pledged to “eliminate” Daylight Savings Time1, which he called “inconvenient, and very costly to our Nation”. The idea may have been inspired by DOGE, the Department of Government Efficiency, an agency set to be run by Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy, after Musk and Ramaswamy pitched a similar plan earlier this month.

    I suppose I’m not anti-DOGE, though it’s hard to say because its structure and its mandate are unclear. I’d certainly like for it not to cost $2.5 billion to build a single mile of subway track in New York, for instance. But without having any real teeth to implement its policies, DOGE may focus more on gimmicks — and will run the risk of violating the precept of Chesterton's Fence by changing things that are perfectly fine or where the current rules are in place for a reason.

    Daylight Savings Time is a perfect example of this. Eliminating it would deprive the average American of 40 minutes of waking daylight in the summer months. This is a terrible idea.

    Nate is a data-driven guy, and he's dug out some very interesting data ("The average American claims to be sleeping from 10:06 p.m. to 6:42 a.m.") and generates more.

    I am kind of a radical, arguing not only for the abolition of DST, but getting the government out of the business of dictating what time it is. See, if you dare, my magnum opus from 2013: The Right Number of Time Zones is Zero.)

    So Nate didn't convince me. But see what you think.

    (Note to the Reader: if you want 40 more minutes of waking daylight in the summer, just wake up 40 minutes earlier. Or maybe later, I'm not sure which way that works. But you're smart, you can figure that out.)

  • "It's a bold strategy, Cotton. Let's see if it pays off for 'em." Penzeys is a retailer of spices, apparently. And they are (also apparently) trying to build their brand on …

    Their website even has an "About Republicans" page. I find it kinda-sorta passive-aggressive, but see what you think. And their past tweets seem to tilt aggressive. Example:

    Well, it's not as if I'm gonna shop there, I guess. Nearest store: Arlington MA; kind of a hike for chili powder.

    (Item headline quote here. You probably knew that.)


Last Modified 2024-12-18 5:27 PM EST