Every once in a while we hear from someone that young people in support of reform are being duped about Social Security.  A typical case can be found in The Plot Against Social Security, a book that seeks to "redress the [im]balance of information" in the debate.  Though there isn't much information between the covers, there are plenty of examples such as the following, which supposedly explains how young people were fooled:

[The reformers'] plan was to drive a generational wedge into the system's broad base of support by suggesting that the retired and near-retired would reap far better benefits than younger people just entering the workforce.

That's right.  The devious plan of the reformers was to...tell the truth!  And we, the naive youth, were silly enough to believe the facts. 

Or maybe we weren't.  On the very next page, the author writes:

[T]he evidence for the so-called generational divide in levels of support for Social Security is questionable.  While it does appear that younger workers feel greater doubts about the system's future, the statistics don't show lower support for the program in that age group than among the elderly.

So have we drunk the Kool-Aid or not?  The author doesn't seem to be too happy that we "appear" to "feel greater doubts" about Social Security, but what does this even mean?  The only scientific way to make such conclusions about a group's feelings would be by using statistics.  And unless the statistics are bad, that conclusion wouldn't appear to represent the group's feelings, it would represent them.  The fact is that a lot of us worry about Social Security, and it is silly to suggest that we do not or should not. 

But there is a more interesting point.  The author's motive--and it is the same one that drives a lot of arguments that young people have been duped--is to somehow prove that we do not support fundamental reform.  It's an impossible case to make. 

In this instance, the faulty logic is that because we support the Social Security program, we must therefore oppose personal retirement accounts.  Because we believe that workers should retire in dignity, because we want our grandparents to be financially secure, we must therefore oppose reform that would provide the system with long-term solvency.  Even if we support personal accounts, the rhetoric goes, we must really (perhaps secretly) oppose them.  And even if Pew Research shows that 2 out of 3 young people favor personal accounts, we must actually feel differently.

The truth is that we are concerned about the future of Social Security, and it is precisely this concern that leads us to advocate for personal accounts.  It is because we are tired of politicians spending our Social Security money on other programs that we demand change.  It is because we are paying more into the system than we'll eventually get out that we support choice and ownership.  And it is because we believe that every American, young and old, deserves to own and choose his or her future that we support personal retirement accounts.  It just so happens that we have the facts on our side, too.

Comments