It is an income transfer program, not a defined-contribution or defined-benefit pension program. There are no investments; the collected taxes purchase Treasury debt. Congress needs to have the spigots adjusted properly (which they may or may not do), but that’s it.

Far better for most of the poor to simply hand out money to them gratis rather than to have it doled out through the expensive, corrupt and ineffective system that we have today. Those who truly need to be wards of the State are a fraction of those currently living on the dole and subject to the ministrations of legions of government nannies.

I think you are generally correct, that the state should restructure the tax code to remove the most impecunious people from it, provide an income floor for the elderly and disabled, and subsidize the earned income of a selection of the rest. The thing is, there are a selection of services which are not the economists’ ‘public goods’ which are intertwined with the regulatory and order-maintenance functions of the state (e.g. child protective services and foster care, asylum), or with the maintenance of civic life (primary and secondary schooling, the public defender’s office), or with providing a facility for working (primary and secondary schooling, mass transit). Also, expenditures on housing and groceries and fuel are fairly regular and predictable and vary according to desired amenity. Expenditures on medicine and surgery, on custodial care, and on temporary housing in the event of a natural disaster are not and require the formation of actuarial pools. In these last circumstances, the provision of the services themselves rather than cash might be preferable. (Though the insurance programs might be structured quite differently than Medicare is today or than the Democratic congressional caucus would approve).

So is health care.

“I’m a conservative, and as such, do not confuse taxation with charitable giving, or find the nanny state appealing.”

That doesn’t make you conservative. That makes you libertarian. You are libertarian, and as such, do not acknowledge that charitable donations did not provide health care for the needy and do not find solidarity appealing.

Well, yes, because I consider it to be a very bad thing.

National defense is one of the legitimate roles of the Federal Government. Social security is an all-conceived Ponzi scheme that is going to run out of money once the boomers start collecting.

I’m a conservative, and as such, do not confuse taxation with charitable giving, or find the nanny state appealing.

You say that as if it’s a bad thing.

“I would have been very resentful if the government had forced me to buy health insurance.”

Are you currently resentful for having to buy car insurance, social security, Medicare, or weapons for our wars in Iraq and Afghanistan?