America's Misguided Approach to Social Welfare
The amount of resources the American public and private sectors commit to all forms of welfare is massive -- the fifth highest outlay in the world. Yet the American way of distributing that money does less to reduce poverty and inequality than that of virtually any other rich democracy. The United States can, and should, reform its welfare state, and it does not need to resort to European style socialism to do so.
KIMBERLY J. MORGAN is Associate Professor of Political Science and International Affairs at George Washington University.
Compared with other developed countries, the United States has very low taxes, little income redistribution, and an extraordinarily complex tax code. If it wanted to, the government could raise taxes without crippling growth or productivity. Tax reform is ultimately a political choice, not an economic one -- a statement about what sort of society Americans want.
Equality of opportunity has long been an American ideal, and the expansion of opportunity to women and minorities in the last half century has been a major success. But other obstacles to advancement remain, and recently, socioeconomic inequality has actually increased. The United States now has less social mobility than more other wealthy nations; it can and must catch up by following their lead.

Debates about the proper role and size of government dominated the 2012 U.S. presidential election. President Barack Obama; his Republican rival, Mitt Romney; and their surrogates relentlessly sparred over who should pay what taxes, who should get what benefits, and how Washington should manage major sectors of life, such as health care and education. What neither side made clear was how the United States stacks up against other developed countries. As other countries embraced big government and generous social policies in the middle of the twentieth century, the common wisdom goes, the United States sought a relatively small welfare state. And for partisans on both sides of the aisle, one of the key issues up for grabs on November 6 was whether such American exceptionalism would persist or fade away.
A closer look at U.S. social spending shows that it is indeed distinctive, but not in the ways that many believe. The United States does tax less and spend less on social programs than most of the rich democracies with which it is usually compared. But even so, the country has developed a large and complex system of social protection, one that involves a mix of government spending, tax-based subsidies, and private social spending. In its own way, the U.S. welfare system delivers many of the same benefits as the systems in other developed countries, including health insurance, pensions, housing support, and child care. And when added together, the amount of resources the public and private sectors commit to all these forms of welfare is massive: as a percentage of GDP, for example, spending on the health and welfare of citizens is greater in the United States than in most advanced industrial economies...
This is a premium article
You must be a logged in Foreign Affairs subscriber to continue reading. If you wish to continue reading this article please subscribe , or activate your online account to get full online access.
Log In
Buy PDF
Buy a premium PDF reprint of this article.Related
The basis of US military and diplomatic power is its economic power, and the USA's single most important security objective is now economic self-repair. "Unless the United States reinvigorates in this decade the economic roots of its international power, it risks an erosion of self-confidence and of its international leadership at the turn of the century. With a weak economy and a society in conflict over how to allocate slowly growing resources, this nation would find it increasingly difficult to achieve its essential global objectives".
By 2030, Social Security payroll tax rates will rise to 19 percent - more than 45 percent including Medicare and Medicaid. In Europe, which faces similar challenges, the burden of entitlement expenses is already so great as to slow economic growth. The solution is to phase out Social Security and other pay-as-you-go programs and replace them with a mandate for all to put away savings in a mix of stocks and bonds. Under a privatized system, the same benefits would require contributions equal to just two percent of U.S. payroll. Not only would the elderly be safe from poverty, but for the first time people of low and moderate means would accumulate significant personal savings.
Although privatization zealots backed by Wall Street have called for replacing Social Security with mandatory investment in stocks and bonds, their promised high rates of return do not accord with experience. Any form of private investment is much riskier than a government program, and in the end can be more expensive if the government must bail it out. For at least a generation, retirement taxes would rise, funneling money to private investors. With small adjustments, the current pay-as-you-go system can continue its historic success.
