From McHenry County Board member John “Jack” Collins comes the following rebuttal to the Tim Beck column just below:
Misusing the Constitution, Mislabeling Socialism, and Missing the Point
A response to my earlier writing claims that Social Security is unconstitutional, that the federal government is out of control, and that any attempt at collective responsibility is basically socialism in disguise. It’s a familiar tune and a deeply misleading one. So let’s clear the air.
The Tenth Amendment Is Not a Magic Wand
Let’s start with the Tenth Amendment.
It gets invoked every time conservatives want to shut down a conversation about federal programs they don’t like.
But the idea that Social Security violates the Constitution because “retirement” isn’t mentioned by name is legally and historically false.
The Supreme Court settled this in 1937 (Helvering v. Davis), confirming that Congress has the power to tax and spend for the general welfare.
That’s not some fringe interpretation, it’s binding law.
And let’s be honest: the Tenth Amendment argument is rarely applied consistently.
When it’s about helping seniors retire, it’s unconstitutional.
But when it’s about enforcing immigration crackdowns, overriding state abortion protections, or controlling school curriculums from D.C., somehow the Tenth Amendment disappears.
What’s being invoked isn’t constitutional principle, it’s political convenience.
“Socialism” Isn’t a Catch-All for Things You Dislike
Next, the term “socialism” gets thrown around so loosely it’s lost any meaning.
Social Security is a public insurance program.
It’s not government seizure of industry.
It’s not collectivized ownership.
No one’s nationalizing your paycheck.
If the definition of socialism now includes programs funded by payroll contributions that support seniors and the disabled, then I guess fire departments, public schools, and libraries are socialist too.
This isn’t an argument about economics.
It’s an effort to delegitimize anything that prioritizes the public good over private gain.
The word “socialism” isn’t being used descriptively, it’s being used politically, to scare people into rejecting policies that benefit anyone beyond the already wealthy.
The Real Redistribution: Upward, Not Down
The response also bemoans “wealth redistribution” as if it’s some socialist fever dream.
But here’s the irony: we already have redistribution, from the bottom up.
When billionaires and corporations pay lower tax rates than teachers or EMTs, when profits soar while wages stagnate, when public dollars bail out industries while workers are left behind that’s redistribution.
Programs like Social Security are designed to balance that equation.
They don’t eliminate inequality, but they offer a baseline of dignity for people who spent a lifetime working.
That’s not a handout, it’s the return on investment into a system we all pay into.
Spare Me the “Dependency” Lecture
One of the most tired of conservative talking points is that social programs create “dependency.”
But this concern only ever seems to apply to the poor, the elderly, or the vulnerable, never corporate tax breaks, fossil fuel subsidies, or agricultural bailouts.
Apparently, government help is only problematic when it’s going to someone you don’t think deserves it.
Suggesting that individuals could “do better” if they just invested their payroll taxes themselves ignores the reality that millions of Americans have little to no disposable income to invest.
It assumes stable jobs, access to financial tools, and immunity from market crashes.
It’s a fantasy rooted in privilege, not economics.
Systemic Inequality Is Not a Myth — It’s Data
The response also mocks terms like “structural barriers” and “systemic inequality,” as though they’re made-up slogans.
But the facts say otherwise.
Education outcomes, wealth accumulation, healthcare access, and criminal justice statistics all show persistent disparities often along racial, economic, and geographic lines.
To act like these don’t exist is willful blindness.
To suggest they’re not worth addressing is worse, it’s a tacit endorsement of the status quo.
And when that status quo overwhelmingly benefits the already wealthy and well-connected, it’s not “freedom” you’re defending.
It’s entrenched privilege.
A Government That Works for Everyone
The biggest divide here isn’t just economic it’s moral.
I believe government should work for everyone, not just those who started life on third base.
That doesn’t mean every outcome should be equal.
But it does mean the playing field should be fair.
It means we invest in systems that offer stability, security, and opportunity, not just tax shelters and corporate deregulation.
The idea that Social Security is “vote buying” is as cynical as it is false.
It assumes people are too stupid to recognize their own needs and that any effort to meet those needs collectively is illegitimate.
That’s not democracy.
That’s disdain for the people who make democracy possible.
Final Thought: Let’s Stop Hiding Behind Bad Faith
Arguments
If you oppose Social Security, fine. Say so. But don’t hide behind mangled constitutional interpretations, scare words like “socialism,” or hand-wringing about “dependency” while defending systems that reward wealth and punish work.
And certainly don’t talk about morality while protecting those who already have the most from contributing their fair share.
This country wasn’t built by rugged individualists going it alone.
It was built by people who understood that we do better when we invest in each other.
That’s not socialism.
That’s common sense and a more honest kind of patriotism.
