How we define social contract defines the differences between Marxist/Progressives in the United States and Freedom Loving Americans. The social contract we have in the United States would be the Constitution. This is the contract between the people and the government with the people as the rulers and the government as the servant. This is unique in history. Within the framework of the Constitution a person has to have a vivid imagination to find any place where economic security is guaranteed to the people, the rulers, by the federal government, the servant to be directly or indirectly referenced. I do believe a logical argument could be made that the states would have that right if they so choose.
Any of the social programs now under the control of the federal government would have to be deemed as unconstitutional. That would certainly include all the health care plans, retirement and disability plans, income assistance, Education Department including the student loan program, all of HHR, the Department of Agriculture, anything begun under FDR, and we can go on and on. None of these came under the powers delegated to the federal government. These would be powers reserved for the states and for the people as stated in the Tenth Amendment.
The Marxist/Progressives do want and have always wanted the United States Constitution abolished and this includes Obama and Hilary. The Freedom Loving Americans like Ronald Reagan, Ted Cruz, Trey Gowdy, and Don Jans have always believed in the United States Constitution as a protector of individual freedom and individual opportunity. With which group do you stand?