I don't think I have many readers on the left, but if I do, then I would like them to answer a question. If the plans of the left are so noble, enjoy such wide support, and are so generally good, then why do you have to engage in deception to get them enacted?

Before anyone objects, let me provide some examples.

Let us start with social security, the grandfather of all deceptive programs. It was sold on a lie, the premise that it was some form of insurance, while, in reality, it is a variable welfare payment based, only in part, on past contributions. It may be made to appears as some form of insurance, but, as I argue elsewhere, it has almost none of the essential features, such as risk pooling, or being self-financing, that insurance must have.

If social security is a good idea and everyone supports it, then why try to sell it as insurance, when it clearly is not?

But let us ignore that, and look at some more interesting lies. For example, how much do you pay in social security taxes? Most, excepting the self-employed, will say 6.2% on the first $102,000 of income, with an additional amount for medicaid. Self employed people know the truth, that you actually pay 12.4%.

"Wait!" some of you may say "I only pay 6.2%, my employer pays the other half." And that is where the lie comes in. Does anyone really think when an employer is allocating money to hire a new employee, he looks at the forms and says "I have $100,000 to hire someone, so I can pay $100,000" and then later realized he has to pay another $6200 in social security? No, he takes that into account when setting the wage. If he has $100,000 he will offer $94,000, knowing he will have to pay $5800 in social security. In other words, you are paying all 12.4%, but half is hidden by this government mandated subterfuge.

So, if social security is such a good idea, and the rate is fair, why the deception?

Nor is that the only place social security is used to deceive the public. Back in the 1970's when welfare was just starting to become a dirty word, some clever politicians came up with a clever way to create more welfare without it being called such. Instead of a new cash benefit that would upset taxpayers, they created a "special" tax rebate for those with low incomes. What was "special" about the Earned Income Tax Credit was that you could be refunded money you never paid.  Admittedly, those who paid taxes get more back, as they get a combination rebate and payment, but do not be deceived, the EITC is just welfare in disguise. That was the whole point. It may use the tax system to prevent it being called welfare, but "refunding" money that was never paid in taxes is clearly welfare*.

So, if this is such a good idea, why hide this welfare scheme in the tax code, why try to trick people into thinking a welfare payment is just another tax rebate?

By the way, it is not yet law, but Obama is proposing a similar sham refund. His is to take the form of a daycre subsidy disguised as a tax rebate. Check out his "Blueprint" and you will find a promise of a deduction for child care, half of which is "refundable". That means that even those who pay no taxes can get a "refund" of half their child care costs, up to the maximum allowed, even if they pay no taxes.

Again, if paying subsidies for child care is such a good idea, why hide it in the tax code, rather than make an explicit welfare payment? What is he trying to hide?

Let us leave social security and move to another absurdity, the food stamp program. The idea behind this is a complete sham. The premise is that, by providing "stamps" only redeemable for food, the program will force people to spend them on food, rather than drugs or alcohol. But in reality this is just a fig leaf thrown to critics. And everybody in the welfare ranks knows it.

First, economic theory shows why this is completely invalid. If food stamps are provided to pay for food, it frees the cash which would otherwise be spent on food.  That money can then be spent on drugs and alcohol.  Economic theory does argue that it would cause a slight increase in the amount spent on food, but I would disagree.

Why? Because food stamps themselves can be converted to cash. Supposedly this is impossible, but we all know that is a lie. Not only have there been countless news stories about shops in various cities which illegally convert food stamps to cash, at a 4 to 1 or 5 to 1 ratio, but even without these shops, there is still a healthy traffic in food stamps. When I worked for Social Services we had some food stamp recipients who would "lose" their card once a month and need a replacement when the new benefits were issued. Everyone knew they were selling their card, but policy forbade us from doing anything about it.

As I said, food stamps is a sham, and everyone knows it. So, why does it exist? Why try to convince the public you are "making" people buy food, when in reality you know you are simply giving them a card they sell for fifteen cents on the dollar?

And I could go on and on and on. The withholding system, which hides how much we pay in taxes. All the affirmative action programs which deny they are about quotas. The list is endless.

So, I have to ask one more time, if these programs are so popular and beneficial, why all the deception?

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

* For those who argue this is a refund, explain how the schedule can specify a 40% payout for someone with an income of $0. If you have no income, you pay no taxes. What is there to refund?