Texas teachers and Social Security

A couple days ago I posted a bit about the Texas teachers Social Security scam.

Tax law professor James Edward Maule has a long and detailed post about the situation, how it came about and who fought fixing it. His summary:

This story, unfortunately, is so typical of how things are done today. It begins with a badly drafted legislation containing an indefensible provision, it is tainted with the “married people are special (sometimes)” discrepancy, it encourages greed, it generates reform attempts that are blocked by unions and politicians who cannot put the public good above individual and group gain, and it is reformed with a prospective effective date that triggers a flurry of superficial employment. It pits those who think “just because it’s not illegal doesn’t mean you ought to do it” against those who think “life is fine as long as you simply stay within legal boundaries.” It gives sustenance to those who think government needs to regulate every little bit of life because people, left to their own devices, lack the judgment to take a wider view of things. It also gives “I told you so” energy to those who predicted that every attempt to make life easier for those truly in need will generate abuse by those who aren’t in need but want to appear as though they are.

None of this would have happened had Social Security been left as an insurance program designed to assist those whose pensions and other income were insufficient to support them after retirement. Social Security was enacted, after all, as the Federal INSURANCE Contributions Act. Yep, the I in FICA means INSURANCE, not entitlement.

Posted by Chip on July 02, 2004 at 06:19 AM
Comments
Note: Comments are open for only 10 days after the original post.

Yep, the I in FICA mean INSURANCE, not entitlment.

So if we change the acronym to represent that it is now an Entitlement, we get FECA(l), a very apt name, if you ask me.

Posted by: Allen Glosson at July 2, 2004 11:10 AM