Not a State issue however
Social Security and the New Deal: A Liberty-Killing Fool’s Errand
The New Deal, rolled out in the 1930s under Franklin D. Roosevelt, promised a safety net for Americans—Social Security, unemployment insurance, and a slew of other programs meant to cradle citizens from cradle to grave. On the surface, it sounds noble: the government planning for your retirement, ensuring you’re not left destitute in old age. But dig into the roots of these programs, and you’ll find they’re not grounded in liberty—they’re grounded in control. I’m here to argue that having the government manage your retirement through Social Security is a bad idea, a betrayal of the liberty this nation was conceived in, and a fool’s errand for future citizens. Let’s break it down.
The New Deal’s Anti-Liberty Roots
The New Deal was born in the Great Depression, a time of desperation that FDR exploited to expand federal power like never before. Social Security, enacted in 1935, was the crown jewel—a program that takes money from your paycheck (currently 6.2% from employees, matched by employers, per SSA) and promises to give it back when you retire. Sounds fair, right? Wrong. Liberty, as the Founders envisioned it, is about individual responsibility and minimal government interference. The Declaration of Independence speaks of “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness”—not “life, liberty, and a government pension.” The Constitution, in Article 1, Section 8, limits federal powers to specific duties like defense and commerce, not cradle-to-grave welfare. Social Security flips that on its head, inserting the government as your financial nanny.
This isn’t liberty—it’s dependency. The New Deal’s architects, influenced by progressive ideas and European socialism, believed the state should manage your future. But liberty means you control your own destiny, not Uncle Sam. By mandating contributions to Social Security, the government strips you of the freedom to save, invest, or spend your earnings as you see fit. It’s a forced contract you never signed, one that assumes you’re too incompetent to plan for your own retirement. That’s not the spirit of a nation conceived in liberty—it’s the spirit of a nation conceived in control.
The Government Can’t Even Manage Its Own Budget
If you’re going to trust someone with your retirement, shouldn’t they at least be competent? The federal government can’t even manage its own budget, yet we’re supposed to believe they can manage our future. The national debt is $35 trillion as of 2025 (U.S. Treasury), with annual deficits averaging $1.5 trillion under Biden (CBO, 2024). Social Security’s trust fund is projected to be depleted by 2035 (SSA Trustees Report, 2024), meaning future benefits will rely on general revenue—or higher taxes. The government’s track record is a mess: it overspends, overpromises, and underdelivers. Look at the 2023 debt ceiling crisis—Congress played chicken with default while Social Security checks hung in the balance (CNN, June 2023). Do you trust these folks with your retirement?
The government’s fiscal irresponsibility isn’t new. Since the New Deal, it’s ballooned programs without a sustainable funding plan. Social Security started with a 2% payroll tax in 1937; now it’s 12.4% combined (SSA). That’s a 620% increase, and it’s still not enough—benefits may be cut by 21% by 2035 if nothing changes (SSA Trustees Report). Meanwhile, the government wastes billions on fraud—$72 billion in improper Social Security payments from 2015 to 2023 (SSA Inspector General). They can’t manage their own house, yet they’re picking your pocket to “secure” your future. That’s not liberty—that’s lunacy.
A Fool’s Errand for Future Citizens
In a nation conceived in liberty, taking money out of your paycheck and putting it into a government system you may or may not get as a future citizen is a fool’s errand. Social Security isn’t a savings account—it’s a pay-as-you-go system where today’s workers fund today’s retirees. When it started, there were 16 workers per retiree; now it’s 2.8, projected to drop to 2.3 by 2035 (SSA). That means more burden on future generations—your kids and grandkids—to pay for a system that might not even be there for them. If the trust fund runs dry, benefits get slashed, or taxes skyrocket. Either way, future citizens are left holding the bag for a promise they never made.
And what about choice? Liberty means you decide how to save for your future—stocks, real estate, a 401(k), or even a mattress stuffed with cash. Social Security takes that choice away, forcing you into a system with a dismal return. A 2023 Urban Institute study found that a high-earning worker born in 1985 gets a 0.4% annual return on Social Security contributions—compare that to the S&P 500’s average of 7% (adjusted for inflation). You’re handing over your money to a government that can’t balance its books, for a return that’s laughable. That’s not security—that’s a scam.
The Liberty-First Alternative
South Dakota deserves better. We should empower individuals to plan their own futures, not rely on a government that’s proven it can’t be trusted. Privatizing retirement savings—letting you invest your 6.2% payroll tax in personal accounts—would give you control and better returns. Chile did this in 1981, and workers saw returns of 8% annually (Cato Institute). Even partial privatization, like Bush proposed in 2005, could let younger workers opt into private accounts while preserving benefits for current retirees. It’s not perfect, but it’s a step toward liberty—your money, your choice, your future.
The New Deal’s legacy, including Social Security, was never about liberty—it was about control, dependency, and a government that thinks it knows better than you.