By Timothy Loftus, Editor & Publisher | Sergeant Bluff Advocate
(SBA) - Let me get something out of the way right at the beginning of this commentary because I don’t want there to be any misunderstanding about where I personally stand. I am against socialism. I am against communism. I don’t believe government should own our farms, factories, grocery stores or businesses. I believe in private property, free enterprise, competition and the ability of someone to work hard, take a risk and benefit financially when that risk pays off. So when Iowa U.S. Senator Chuck Grassley recently published a commentary titled “Socialism Doesn’t Work,” I didn’t exactly fall out of my chair disagreeing with the headline. When we’re talking about genuine socialism or communism, Senator Grassley and I probably have considerably more agreement than disagreement.
And my opinion isn’t based entirely on something I read in a history book. In May 1987, I visited the Soviet Union—the U.S.S.R., or C.C.C.P. as it appeared there—and saw firsthand what life under a communist government could look like. It wasn’t good, and nobody should be forced to live under a system that restricts individual freedom and gives government that degree of control over people’s lives. I even managed to attract the attention of the KGB after saying something stupid in defense of U.S. policy. That experience certainly didn’t turn me into an advocate for communism. Quite the opposite. I came home with an even greater appreciation for the freedoms and opportunities we have in the United States. I don’t want America becoming anything remotely resembling the Soviet Union I visited in 1987. I also don’t believe we’re remotely close to becoming it because we have Medicare, Social Security or a program that helps a struggling family buy groceries.
That’s where Grassley’s commentary begins to bother me. Not because he criticizes socialism, but because we need to be careful where we draw the line between socialism and the social welfare programs that have existed within America’s capitalist economy for generations. To be fair, Grassley doesn’t specifically call Medicare, Social Security, SNAP or Medicaid socialism, and I’m not going to put words in his mouth. But he does write, “Socialists want groceries, higher education, healthcare, energy and transportation to be public goods run by the government paid for by taxpayers.” That’s where my ears perk up. Government helping pay for something and government owning an industry are two very different things.
Grassley writes, “As a lifelong family farmer, I appreciate how the free marketplace incentivizes hard work and high-quality food production, unlike Soviet-style collectivization that led to catastrophic famine in the 1930s.” He’s right about Soviet collectivization. It was a disaster. But Soviet collectivization and SNAP aren’t the same thing. SNAP doesn’t take possession of a farmer’s land. It doesn’t nationalize Hy-Vee or put Washington bureaucrats behind the meat counter at Hy-Vee. SNAP provides qualifying Americans with assistance purchasing food in a private marketplace. Farmers remain private producers, trucking companies remain private businesses and grocery stores remain privately owned.
Agriculture itself demonstrates why government assistance and socialism aren’t synonymous. American farmers have benefited for generations from federal crop insurance, commodity programs, conservation programs and disaster assistance. Does that make an Iowa farmer receiving federal assistance a socialist? Absolutely not. Government can provide assistance within a capitalist economy without taking ownership of the business receiving it. So why should the terminology suddenly change when the person receiving government assistance is a struggling parent standing at the grocery store checkout?
Grassley also writes, “Socialism promises equality for all and delivers prosperity to none.” If we’re talking about Soviet-style centrally planned economies, I’m not going to argue much with him. I’ve seen enough with my own eyes to know that’s not the system I want. But if we’re suggesting that government helping a senior citizen pay a medical bill is socialism, I’m getting off the train. Medicare is government health insurance, but government doesn’t own America’s healthcare industry. Medicare patients visit private doctors and hospitals, take medications manufactured by private companies and fill prescriptions at private pharmacies. We should debate Medicare’s costs, fraud and long-term financial sustainability. But Medicare isn’t Marxism-Leninism.
The same goes for Social Security. Americans can spend 40 or 50 years paying Social Security taxes before receiving benefits. I don’t consider those retirees socialists. I consider them Americans receiving benefits from a system they spent their working lives paying into. Medicaid covers children, disabled Americans and many elderly Americans needing long-term care. We can debate eligibility, costs and administration, but let’s do that without pretending the Berlin Wall has anything to do with Grandma’s nursing-home bill.
Grassley spends considerable time discussing the Soviet Union, the Iron Curtain and Ronald Reagan’s famous challenge to “tear down this wall.” That history matters. I was in the Soviet Union just a few weeks before Reagan delivered those words at the Brandenburg Gate in June 1987. Communist governments restricted freedom, controlled economies and suppressed political opposition. We shouldn’t forget that history. But we also shouldn’t use it so broadly that every government social program becomes associated with it. Take something Americans overwhelmingly reject—communism and Soviet-style socialism—and repeatedly place it next to government-provided healthcare, food assistance or education, and eventually those lines can become blurred.
Grassley’s argument is stronger when he criticizes the Democratic Socialists of America. I have no problem with him calling socialism socialism. It’s right there in the organization’s name. If an organization identifies itself as socialist and advocates socialist policies, criticize those policies. That’s fair political debate. But a person receiving SNAP isn’t automatically a socialist. A senior using Medicare isn’t a socialist. A farmer receiving disaster assistance isn’t a socialist. A veteran receiving VA benefits isn’t a socialist. Government assistance and government ownership of the economy aren’t the same thing.
If taxpayer funding alone constitutes socialism, we’re going to have to apply that definition consistently. Police departments are taxpayer funded. Fire departments are taxpayer funded. Public schools, roads, bridges, libraries and the United States military are taxpayer funded. Yet nobody seriously argues that calling the fire department when your house is burning means you’ve embraced socialism. America is a capitalist country that has decided there are certain things we collectively pay for through government. The legitimate political debate is over what those things should be and how much taxpayers should spend.
And this is where I become frustrated with our politicians. I’m tired of social welfare programs that help Americans in genuine need being villainized by attaching words such as “socialism” to them, particularly when the real debate is about government spending priorities. If Congress wants to cut a program because it costs too much, say that. If lawmakers believe the money would be better spent somewhere else, tell us where and let taxpayers decide whether they agree. Don’t frighten people with the Soviet Union when the real discussion is about balancing a federal budget and deciding where taxpayer dollars should go.
If Congress wants to reduce SNAP, tell me how much taxpayers will save, how many people will lose benefits, how many are children, elderly or disabled, how many recipients work and how much fraud exists. Maybe the program needs reform. Fine. Make the case. If Congress wants to expand it, tell taxpayers what it will cost, who qualifies, who pays and what prevents abuse. Maybe expansion makes sense. Fine. Make that case. Give us facts instead of ideological labels.
I don’t believe supporting a social safety net means giving government a blank check. Government wastes money. Programs become bloated. Fraud happens. Able-bodied people capable of working should be expected to work when reasonable employment is available. Eligibility requirements should be enforced and taxpayers deserve accountability. But none of that conflicts with believing America should help people who genuinely need it. Helping someone through unemployment, disability, illness, old age or a temporary financial crisis doesn’t require abandoning capitalism.
Grassley closes his commentary with a joke about his nearly 50-year-old Hoover vacuum cleaner, writing that some economists might say socialism and his vacuum have one thing in common: “They both ‘suck.’” I’ll give Senator Grassley credit—that’s funny. And if we’re talking about Soviet-style socialism, communism or government taking ownership of America’s private economy, I’ll help him plug in the Hoover. I’ve seen the alternative firsthand, and I don’t want it here.
But I want to know what we’re vacuuming up.
If it’s socialism, fine. If it’s communism, get rid of it. But don’t accidentally suck up Medicare, Social Security, veterans’ benefits, assistance for disabled Americans or temporary food assistance for a working family along with it just because we’d rather spend those taxpayer dollars somewhere else.
I’m against socialism. I’m against communism. I’m for capitalism, private property, free enterprise and individual responsibility. And I’m also for Americans helping Americans when they genuinely need it.
Those positions aren’t contradictory.
There’s a world of difference between government owning the grocery store and government helping an American who has fallen on hard times buy groceries at one.
I’ve seen what the first kind of system can become.
The second is called a social safety net.
And we shouldn’t allow political rhetoric to confuse the two.
