I subscribe to the WSJ and took USNews&WorldReport for a number of
years. I also subscribe to the Tampa Tribune. I have forgotten what the liberal
press looks like.
Maybe you should all read a few more
non-liberal choices on the internet. I've been doing research
because I want to poll them for my Festival. It is interesting what you
find being taught out there in the little colleges by Ph.D
economists. Make them poor and they will come home to
God. Poverty keeps them
Christian. They may have a point
there. That could be another reason they ultimately don't
like Jews, except for the rapture of course, Jews are seen as
helping each other be rich. Another case of opposites not
attracting. How much of this do you think our addict
President includes in his religion? Anyone know the
Robert Burns Poems The Merry Maid of Chalcedon? I don't think they
were referencing that on this Chalcedon web site.
REH
Social Security and the Family
Timothy D. Terrell
April 4, 2003
Families in our society are fragmented in ways
that would have been difficult to comprehend centuries ago. This is all the
more strange because we are better able than any of our ancestors to
communicate and meet with family members. The market economy has produced a
wide variety of machines that allow us to speak with and see people across
thousands of miles, and travel distances in a few hours that would once have
taken weeks. With this capacity to keep in touch with family members, why is
it that we have a greater disregard for family connections than did previous
generations?
Perhaps one reason is that we are less dependent on one another than in
times past. Before the state began to provide welfare in its various forms,
unemployment insurance, and Social Security, the family and the church were
the primary sources of assistance for an individual suffering hardship. The
family would properly be the first resort when individual resources were
exhausted (I Timothy 5:8, 16). Thus, the individual who neglected
family obligations, was quarrelsome, or isolated himself geographically from
the family became exposed to greater risk.
The wider availability of insurance has increased the ability of the
individual to purchase protection from some hazards. Yet even when insurance
can alleviate some risks, there are serious eventualities that would cause an
isolated individual or small family to suffer immensely if the family or
church does not step in. Insurance arrangements are better suited for those
events that are unlikely, expensive, and are not substantially influenced by
the insured's own behavior. Insurance is not for events that are likely. For
example, aging, and a decline in the ability to earn income, is a likely event
in the lives of most people. Saving is better preparation for retirement than
insurance. In the event that catastrophic loss destroys savings, or
higher-than-expected expenses mean that the savings are inadequate, the family
or church may be called upon for help.
Social Security is a poor substitute for this kind of old-age "safety net,"
in addition to whatever we might be able to say about its being beyond the
legitimate scope of the civil government. First, Social Security is a wealth
transfer scheme and not a savings plan or a charity. Money paid into the
system goes to fund the benefits of current Social Security recipients, and
not into actual savings accessible only by the contributor. Payments do not
stop when the total amount received comes to more than the person paid in over
their lifetime, plus any reasonable rate of interest. Instead, the payments
continue, courtesy of those still working (who have no say in whether they pay
in to the system or not).
Second, Social Security does not allow for the use of discretion in relief
of the impoverished. Yet the Bible requires us to use discretion in deciding
whether to provide assistance, how much assistance to provide, and the nature
of the assistance (e.g., I Timothy 5:3-16).
Third, Social Security does not allow unused benefits to be retained and
passed on to heirs as an inheritance. In contrast, family funds allocated to
the support of an elderly family member would remain in the control of the
family if the supported individual should not live as long as expected.
Fourth, Social Security is poor stewardship of the resources used to fund
the system. Because it is a wealth transfer scheme instead of actual savings,
the money going into the system is not being invested in the economy. The
economy's rate of growth is substantially slowed by Social Security, as
several economic studies have shown.
Finally, Social Security eliminates some of the economic benefits that come
from having large families. William Mattox, Jr., writing in USA Today
(July 6, 1999), notes Allan Carlson's argument that today's smaller
families may be related to Social Security:
[I]t's funny how "maybe one" advocates never get around to complaining
about the fact that their Social Security benefits will be largely financed
by other people's children. Indeed, Allan Carlson, president of the Howard
Center for Family, Religion and Society, points out that government old-age
programs tend to disrupt the natural economic incentive for adults to invest
themselves in child rearing.
Carlson says that if Social Security did not rob Peter to pay Paul,
Americans would be more apt to appreciate the long-term social-insurance
value of raising children. And Americans would be more apt to question
various economic projections about how ridiculously "expensive" child
rearing is today.
The presence of Social Security can serve as an excuse for family members,
and the church, to dodge their responsibilities to widows and orphans. Because
Social Security is available, parents may not be as concerned about
maintaining a close relationship with their children, or church members with
their church. When one is not financially dependent on another, one may be
less inclined to resolve differences and pursue peace.
The church is a backup for the family when the family cannot provide for
its own needy (again, see I Timothy 5:16). Yet the family should be the
first recourse when disaster strikes. Social Security bypasses the church, and
makes the church and the family unit less economically relevant, and therefore
less effective.
How, then can our society move toward a more family- and church-oriented
system of economic dependencies, and away from our current dependency on the
state? The first step will be a renewed recognition of the mutual
responsibilities family members and church members have toward one another,
and a preparation to meet those needs. Families should save not only for
vacations, houses, education, and retirement, but for emergencies beyond the
immediate family. Churches should become sources of practical assistance, and
not simply direct the needy to state programs.
Next, the state can assist in returning charity and old-age provision to
families by phasing out Social Security. There is no way to do this without
someone losing some benefit they expected. Some group is going to receive less
than it expected, whether those currently receiving benefits or those
currently paying in to the system. Cutting benefits will succeed politically
only if a large number are "grandfathered" into the current benefits setup.
But the sooner Social Security taxes are ended, the sooner money will be freed
up to go into personal savings and charitable efforts. Some nations have
phased out their own Social security systems by moving to required
contributions to individual IRA-type investments. The state has no legitimate
authority to require people to provide for their retirement in any fashion,
but at least the wealth redistribution aspect of old age provision would be
reduced.
As difficult as the politics may be, eliminating Social Security is, I
believe, a moral obligation. The closer we move to reestablishing the family
as an economic support network, the stronger our society will be.
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Friday, May 30, 2003 11:49
AM
Subject: [Futurework] interesting site
& 14 points of consideration
Just thought I would drop this in
the mix as a site some may like to visit. This book is mentioned on the page
that was forwarded to me.
Darryl
Don't Nobody Anybody
- The Basics of
Rankism
"From the moment a child gets out of bed in
the morning until she is safely tucked in at night, there's one central
mission: the avoidance of humiliation at all costs. We have to be so careful
not to subject children to public humiliation." - Dr, Mel Levine, Oprah
Winfrey Show
When the somebodies of the world
abuse their power, the nobodies lose their dignity. Without dignity, people
lose heart and can become angry and hostile. When we respect each other, we
can have peace.
"Pulling rank over others may be
the ultimate cause of violence in the world today." - Robert W.
Fuller
Robert Fuller's new book Somebodies
and Nobodies: Overcoming the Abuse of Rank has been garnering a
good deal of interest as he tours North America. He recently included NSP
headquarters on his itinerary and we were delighted to host him over lunch
as he talked about rankism. The June issue of Fast Company is also
featuring the book in its "Stuff off the Month" section, as
follows:
Book: I'm a Somebody - Get
Me Out of Here!
Everybody wants to be somebody - even if it's only for 15 minutes.
That's not just the American Dream: It has become an inalienable right (not
to mention the prevailing logic of prime-time TV). The problem is, almost
every rise is accompanied by a humiliating fall. The most illustrious
somebody is made to feel like a Nobody at some point. And here's the twist:
In a world where everybody is striving to be Somebody, Nobodies might have
the edge. That's the intriguing argument that Robert W. Fuller, former
president of Oberlin College (and a self-described "former Somebody", makes
in his bold new book, Somebodies and Nobodies: Overcoming the Abuse of
Rank (New Society Publishers).
Like a Betty Friedan for the 21st
century, Fuller sets out to debunk the "Somebody mystique." The problem is
that whether we idolize J. Lo or J. Welch, our hero worship doesn't get us
any closer to success in our own lives. What's more, Fuller argues, it
obscures the true definition of greatness: In order really to be Somebody
(who's famous for more than being famous), you have to continue to grow, to
venture into the unknown, to learn from others who are more expert than you.
In other words, you have to be willing to be a Nobody again (and
again).
- Polly LaBarre, Fast
Company magazine, June, 2003.
In addition, some 14 points to consider:
Note: Canada is not far behind in this (although hidden) when one views
the actions of our elected officials.
"FASCISM ANYONE?" - The 14 Characteristics of Fascism
Dr.
Lawrence Britt, Free Inquiry, Spring 2003, p.20
http://www.secularhumanism.org/fi/
Dr. Lawrence Britt, a political
scientist, studied the fascist regimes of
Hitler (Germany),
Mussolini (Italy), Franco (Spain), Suharto (Indonesia),
and
Pinochet (Chile). He found the regimes shared 14 identifying
characteristics of fascism:
1. Powerful and Continuing
Nationalism - Fascist regimes tend to make
constant use of patriotic
mottos, slogans, symbols, songs, and other
paraphernalia. Flags are seen
everywhere, as are flag symbols on clothing
and in public
displays.
2. Disdain for the Recognition of Human Rights -
Because of fear of enemies
and the need for security, the people in
fascist regimes are persuaded that
human rights can be ignored in
certain cases because of "need." The people
tend to look the other way
or even approve of torture, summary executions,
assassinations, long
incarcerations of prisoners, etc.
3. Identification of
Enemies/Scapegoats as a Unifying Cause - The people are
rallied into
a unifying patriotic frenzy over the need to eliminate a
perceived
common threat or foe: racial, ethnic or religious minorities;
liberals;
communists; socialists, terrorists, etc.
4. Supremacy of the
Military - Even when there are widespread domestic
problems, the
military is given a disproportionate amount of government
funding, and
the domestic agenda is neglected. Soldiers and military service
are
glamorized.
5. Rampant Sexism - The governments of fascist
nations tend to be almost
exclusively male-dominated. Under fascist
regimes, traditional gender roles
are made more rigid. Opposition to
abortion is high, as is homophobia and
anti-gay legislation and national
policy.
6. Controlled Mass Media - Sometimes the media is
directly controlled by the
government, but in other cases, the media is
indirectly controlled by
government regulation, or sympathetic
mediaspokespeople and executives.
Censorship, especially in war time, is
very common. (Look what's happening
at the F.C.C.
under Powell jr. right now! K)
7. Obsession with
National Security - Fear is used as a motivational tool by
the
government over the masses.
8. Religion and Government are
Intertwined - Governments in fascist nations
tend to use the most
common religion in the nation as a tool to manipulate
public opinion.
Religious rhetoric and terminology is common from government
leaders,
even when the major tenets of the religion are diametrically
opposed to
the government's policies or actions.
9. Corporate Power is
Protected - The industrial and business aristocracy of
a fascist
nation often are the ones who put the government leaders into
power,
creating a mutually beneficial business/government relationship and
power elite.
10. Labor Power is Suppressed - Because
the organizing power of labor is the
only real threat to a fascist
government, labor unions are either eliminated
entirely, or are severely
suppressed.
11. Disdain for Intellectuals and the Arts -
Fascist nations tend to promote
and tolerate open hostility to higher
education, and academia. It is not
uncommon for professors and other
academics to be censored or even arrested.
Free _expression_ in the arts
is openly attacked, and governments often refuse
to fund the
arts.
12. Obsession with Crime and Punishment - Under
fascist regimes, the police
are given almost limitless power to enforce
laws. The people are often
willing to overlook police abuses, and even
forego civil liberties in the
name of patriotism. There is often a
national police force with virtually
unlimited power in fascist
nations.
13. Rampant Cronyism and Corruption - Fascist
regimes almost always are
governed by groups of friends and associates
who appoint each other to
government positions and use governmental
power and authority to protect
their friends from accountability. It is
not uncommon in fascist regimes for
national resources and even
treasures to be appropriated or even outright
stolen by government
leaders.
14. Fraudulent Elections - Sometimes elections in
fascist nations are a
complete sham. Other times elections are
manipulated by smear campaigns
against or even assassination of
opposition candidates, use of legislation
to control voting numbers or
political district boundaries, and manipulation
of the media. Fascist
nations also typically use their judiciaries to
manipulate or control
elections.
