Fundamentals

I think it is important when approaching politics to clarify your view on the fundamental purpose of government. It is my opinion that government's role should be limited and I believe the architects of our government believed this, as well. This percieved need for limited government in a free society is precisely why they chose to enumerate the limited role of government in our Constitution. Due to the myriad of complex economic and moral issues we have faced and will face, it is paramount to throw shackles on the state as it relates to its role in any remedy. Otherwise it will (and has) overstep its bounds. The Bill of Rights are 10 such shackles and were designed to protect the rights of the individual from his/her government.

Regarding the fundamental purpose of government, I view its main functions should be (in order) 1) ensure and defend individual property rights, 2) ensure the individual's right to pursue happiness, 3) provide a military to defend against foreign powers, 4) negotiate trade agreements with foreign nations, and 5) provide infrastructure for water/sewer needs and transportation. I also believe all people have a right to their own pursuit of happiness and should have no legal obligation to support or otherwise fund others pursuit of happiness. As such, no government should physically and/or economically force its citizens to surrender their individual property rights for another citizen (this is one principal of Ayn Rand's with which I agree).

This does not mean people shouldn't engage in their respective communities and leverage their property, skills, and abilities to collectively improve their lives. I simply hold this engagement should be voluntary and no individual should be burdened with legal obligations to their government/communities outside of the five main functions I listed above. 

An example of government overstepping its bounds is mandating all those earning an income (with few exceptions) to pay 6.2% (temporarily 4.2% and originally 1%) to Social Security. Social Security was certainly born from noble intent. I also believe the idea of paying into a program designed to fund your retirement or help support your family in the even you become disabled is a good idea - it really is. Unfortunately, the program's issues with solvency are well documented and nearly all modifications have been to the detriment of the individual (tax increases, increased retirement age). It is my opinion the forced participation is at the heart of the problem.

In my view, SS is essentially an investment option, and therefore individuals should be allowed to opt in and out of the program. If this were the reality, the program would be subject to free market forces and officials managing the program would be incented to ensure its solvency and competitiveness vs. other investments. Since the fund revenues are secured by law, no such incentive exists. As a result, individuals are forced to pay into a poorly managed program and sacrifice their return on investment, which in turn limits their ability to pursue their own happiness. 

The challenge is, how do we correct this? Addressing the imbalance of SS is no easy task and I certainly do not advocate a "pull the plug" approach. Individuals have made life decisions based on the promises our government made and it would be unjust to simply deny payment. A phased approach should be developed which will mitigate the losses of those nearing retirement while at the same time removing the use of force to ensure participation.