I occasionally read a writer and podcaster known as a conspiracy researcher who writes on a variety of subjects. Donald Jeffries is all over the map politically (reformer, idealist, libertarian, classical liberal, populist, and cultural conservative), has published several books, and has written a Substack column since 2021. His name is not important because it is his ideas, which are shared by a growing number of people, that I want to address.
Entitlements
I think the first thing I read of his that put him on my radar was his defense of Social Security:
Social Security had many problems from the very beginning. The idea of such a social safety net is attractive to many people, including me. No one wants the elderly literally left out in the cold after they can no longer work. That feeling is naturally stronger in me now, since I have reached the stage where I am considered elderly.
As usual, the conservative view here is no rational alternative. In fact, for the elderly, it would be a disaster. Since the Ayn Rand-inspired Right still worships the rigged and corrupt marketplace, they act as if there is a private option for the vast majority of old people. Pensions for blue-collar employees and the working poor have gone the way of eight track tapes and thin Victoria Secret models. How does the Right expect most retired people to exist, without Social Security? Unless they’re retired government workers, they aren’t likely to have any pension at all.
Social Security certainly isn’t perfect. But it’s entrenched within our society now. You can’t engineer the elimination of private pensions, which is what gradually happened here over the past forty years or so, and then stop giving back retired citizens the money they paid into Social Security over the course of a lifetime. What are the elderly supposed to live on? Sure, those in the top twenty percent — who managed this collapsing mess with high paying jobs — will possess backup resources. And they are likely to have one of the dwindling number of private pensions left. Those pensions are not going to retirees who toiled at menial labor for fifty years. In other words, to those who would need it most.
Yet, Jeffries says of Medicare: “The other part of our wondrous economic safety net for the elderly is Medicare. I think I’m the only one outside of the Ayn Rand disciples who want to eliminate it altogether, who has pointed out just what a bad deal Medicare is.” But it turns out that he opposes Medicare because it is not socialistic enough:
The Ayn Rand Right, of course, doesn’t want Medicare at all. Which I guess would be a good thing, if you replaced it with something that actually covered the costs of the aging demographic that needs healthcare services the most. But they don’t want anything to replace it. They conceive of healthcare as a “privilege,” not a right. And again, they trust the criminal marketplace, which in this case has spawned a medical-industrial complex that is publicly acknowledged as the third leading cause of death itself.
Jeffries believes, like so many other Americans, that people are entitled to Social Security and Medicare because they have paid into the system their whole working lives:
The conservative Ayn Rand worshipers, the Paul Ryan brigade, are chomping at the bit to end Social Security and Medicare. They consistently refer to them as “entitlements,” which they decidedly are not. Every worker pays into this system for their entire working life.
The mantra became we have to “do something” about “entitlements.” This means, of course, eliminating Social Security and Medicare. Which are not “entitlements” in the sense the Rand cult means. But we are all certainly entitled to these benefits.
Every employee pays into the Social Security and Medicare funds through FICA payroll taxes. When you collect Social Security and Medicare, it’s your money being paid back to you, very gradually. It’s not a “welfare” style perk that lazy oldsters are unfairly receiving. But to the RINO-led Republicans, Social Security and Medicare — which is simply the incremental payback of forcefully withheld income — are the first priorities for spending cuts.
He believes in the social safety net because “there are many millions of Americans who are incapable of earning income.” A “strictly libertarian approach is not practical, and certainly not moral.”
Social Security and Medicare
Social Security is funded by a 12.4 percent tax (split equally between employer and employee) on the first $168,600 of wages. Medicare is funded by a 2.9 percent tax (split equally between employer and employee) on every dollar earned. There is also an additional 0.9 percent Medicare tax that just employees pay on earnings over $200,000 ($250,000 for married couples filing jointly). Self-employed individuals pay the full 12.4 and 2.9 percent, but they receive both a reduction in their net earnings from self-employment and a tax deduction equal to 50 percent of the amount of the Social Security and Medicare taxes they paid. One must pay Social Security and Medicare taxes for a minimum of 40 quarters, or 10 years, to be eligible for benefits, which are then determined on the basis of one’s Primary Insurance Amount (PIA) — the average of a worker’s 35 highest years of earnings (up to a particular year’s wage base), adjusted for inflation.
It is a misconception that people are entitled to Social Security and Medicare because they have paid into the system their whole working lives. Social Security and Medicare benefits don’t correspond to Social Security and Medicare taxes paid. Social Security benefit amounts are arbitrarily set by Congress according to an arcane formula, loosely based on one’s earnings, not Social Security taxes paid. Medicare Part A (hospital coverage) is the only part of Medicare that is “free.” Part B (medical coverage) has a monthly premium that is deducted from Social Security benefits. Part D (prescription drug coverage) is also extra. Congress can raise the retirement age to receive Social Security and the eligibility age to receive Medicare so that a person might die before he is able to collect benefits from either program. Current retirees receive Social Security and Medicare benefits via taxes collected from current workers, not from funds saved out of the payroll taxes retirees paid when they were in the workforce.
Jeffries is also very concerned about “income inequality,” and believes that “American industry has been gutted, with wages and benefits stagnant or reduced, thanks to disastrous trade deals, outsourcing, and the crippling of unions.” He believes that “the best legislation of the twentieth century” and “the last good law” was the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) of 1938 “that created the forty hour work week, overtime, sick and vacation pay.” Jeffries is a little careless with his facts. Actually, the FLSA instituted a forty-four-hour work week (lowered to 40 hours in 1940), mandated time and a half for overtime in certain jobs, prohibited most child labor, and established a minimum wage of 25 cents an hour (now $7.25 an hour). The FLSA had nothing to do with vacation pay, and even now, no company has to provide paid vacations, although I don’t know of any that don’t.
Huey Long
What intrigued me the most about Jeffries was his many references to the charismatic and controversial Louisiana politician Huey Long (1893–1935):
Huey also advocated a thirty hour work week, and a mandated one month annual vacation for all workers. And his “Share Our Wealth” plan would have exempted the first million of income from any taxation whatsoever. Now that was populist.
Remember, my hero Huey Long was smeared as a “socialist” and even a “communist.” His Share our Wealth program would have exempted the first million dollars of income from any taxation whatsoever. That would be equivalent to about twelve million today. His plan would have targeted the absolute lop level of the One Percent, and benefited the poor.
Huey Long’s theme song was “Every Man a King.” It was a catchy song, with inspirational lyrics Huey himself wrote. Again, not proposing it, but if we did divide the wealth up equally, those Brookings’ statistics reveal that every man, woman and child could indeed live like a king. Would that be such a bad thing? We’d have to redefine what it meant to be a king, of course. But as Huey said, “none would wear a crown.”
The great Huey Long wanted to share the wealth. That was his campaign slogan. His proposal would have exempted the first million dollars of income from any taxation. That would be comparable to about $12 million today. Exactly who would oppose such a proposal? Other than those who make more than $12 million, I mean. Huey was not targeting the middle class, as today’s social justice warriors do. He was going after the absolute top level of the One Percent. That’s why they killed him.
Here’s Huey’s great “barbecue” speech from 1935, in which he excoriated the Rockefellers and their ilk with wit and insight. His speeches still resonate today, and the numbers he mentioned have only grown more unequal since then. None of our shamefully bad present leaders could compete with Huey Long.
The whole capital vs. labor battle was born because those who employ others will naturally want to pay them as little as possible. I’m certainly no fan of Karl Marx, but his basic premise was correct; most workers are being exploited. Huey Long won my undying admiration because he understood this crucial point.
Long, a Democratic populist, was the governor of Louisiana from 1928 to 1932 and a U.S. senator from Louisiana from 1932 until he was assassinated in the Louisiana State Capitol.
Long opposed FDR’s New Deal because it was not redistributionist enough. Jeffries maintains that FDR’s decision to create Social Security was “in response to the better thought out and more radical proposals of Huey Long and Dr. Francis Townsend.” He also credits the passage of the FLSA to “the pressure Huey Long put on the Left, to pass a thirty hour work week, with a month’s paid vacation for all workers.” The FLSA “was a watered down version of his ideas, a compromise that was still far better than what workers had before that. Which was basically nothing.”
Long proposed massive and radical wealth limitation and wealth redistribution schemes. He wanted to use the tax code to cap personal fortunes, limit annual incomes, and limit inheritances. No income tax would be imposed on incomes below $1 million. Long wanted the federal government to provide Americans with free college education, free vocational training, a guaranteed annual income, old-age pensions, a debt moratorium, and free medical care. He also wanted the government to force businesses to have a 30-hour workweek and give employees four weeks of vacation every year. Veterans and farmers would be given special assistance. Long also favored increased government regulation of markets and production and more public works projects.
Can the ideas of Huey Long save America? There is no question that many Americans are on the brink of financial insolvency. Price inflation, especially when it comes to housing, child care, groceries, and health care, is destroying not only American’s purchasing power but the American Dream itself. Half of all Americans are carrying credit card balances from month to month. Credit card delinquencies have now surpassed prepandemic levels for the first time. According to real estate data provider ATTOM, “Researchers examined the median home prices last year for roughly 575 U.S. counties and found that home prices in 99% of those areas are beyond the reach of the average income earner, who makes $71,214 a year.”
Long was wrong
Huey Long was Bernie Sanders on steroids and was to the left of even Joe Biden and Barack Obama. There are three main reasons why Long’s policies are wrongheaded.
First of all, where would the federal government get the money to provide all of these payments and free things? Uncle Sam is broke. The federal budget is nearing the $7 trillion mark. The fiscal year 2023 budget deficit was $1.7 trillion. Federal debt (the total of outstanding government borrowing since 1835 — the last year the federal government was not in debt) is almost $35 trillion. Federal interest payments on the debt are approaching $700 billion a year. The Social Security and Medicare trust funds are projected to be exhausted within 15 years. But why, it is argued, can’t we just get the “rich” to pay for these things?
The current incarnation of the tax code has seven tax brackets. Five of them are over 20 percent, with the highest rate being 37 percent. This is on top of the 12.4 percent (split equally between employer and employee) Social Security tax that Americans pay on the first $168,600 of their income and the 2.9 percent (split equally between employer and employee) Medicare tax that Americans pay on every dollar of their income. The rich in the United States are certainly paying their “fair share” — and then some.
According to the latest figures released by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), as reported by the Tax Foundation:
- The top 50 percent of all taxpayers paid 97.7 percent of all federal individual income taxes, while the bottom 50 percent paid the remaining 2.3 percent.
- The top 1 percent of taxpayers (AGI of $682,577 and above) paid the highest average income tax rate of 25.93 percent — nearly eight times the rate faced by the bottom half of taxpayers.
- In 2021, the bottom half of taxpayers earned 10.4 percent of total AGI and paid 2.3 percent of all federal individual income taxes. The top 1 percent earned 26.3 percent of total AGI and paid 45.8 percent of all federal income taxes.
- In all, the top 1 percent of taxpayers accounted for more income taxes paid than the bottom 90 percent combined. The top 1 percent of taxpayers paid more than $1 trillion in income taxes while the bottom 90 percent paid $531 billion.
- The share of income taxes paid by the top 1 percent increased from 33.2 percent in 2001 to 45.8 percent in 2021. Over the same period, the share paid by the bottom 50 percent of taxpayers fell from 4.9 percent to just over 2.3 percent in 2021.
These figures are even more lopsided than they look:
Income tax after credits (the measure of “income taxes paid” above) does not account for the refundable portion of tax credits such as the EITC. If the refundable portion were included, the tax share of the top income groups would be higher and the average tax rate of bottom income groups would be lower. The refundable portion is classified as a spending program by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and therefore is not included by the IRS in these figures.
Under the heavily progressive U.S. tax code, the rich are punished by higher rates and the phase-out of tax exemptions, deductions, and credits as their income rises, while the poor pay little or no income taxes and receive tax refunds of money never withheld from their paychecks in the form of refundable tax credits.
If the federal government confiscated all of the earnings of every American with an adjusted gross income of over $1 million a year, the amount confiscated would run the federal government for less than six months.
Second, Americans already have a plethora of welfare programs. In addition to refundable tax credits like the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC), the Child Tax Credit (CTC), and the American Opportunity Tax Credit (AOTC), there are in the United States about 80 means-tested welfare programs that determine benefits or payments on the basis of the beneficiary’s income or assets. This includes well-known programs like Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF); Pell Grants; Supplemental Security Income (SSI); the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP); Women, Infants, and Children (WIC); Section 8 housing vouchers; the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP [formerly known as food stamps]); school breakfast and lunch programs; and the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP); and lesser-known programs like the Special Milk Program (SMP), the Elderly Nutrition Program, and the Commodity Supplemental Food Program (CSFP).
And third, it is neither constitutional nor a legitimate purpose of the U.S. federal government to have or fund a safety net, a retirement program, a job training program, an education program, a disability program, a food program, a health program, an antipoverty program, or a welfare program. It is neither constitutional nor a legitimate purpose of government for the U.S. federal government to take money from some Americans and give it to other Americans. Charity should always be private and voluntary.
No one even slightly to the right of Bernie Sanders, Joe Biden, and Barack Obama should ever consider any proposal of Huey Long to be good for America.
This article was originally published in the September 2024 issue of Future of Freedom. Reprinted with the author’s permission.
