The Bush family is a good example of a family that helps its members
and its friends and does not rely on Social Security.
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2003 12:21
AM
Subject: [Futurework] A conservative
Christian economists view of Social Security
Since we don't have
conservative Christian economists on this list. I think it
is a liberal thing to do to be sure that we read a few of the people who
Bush listens to. This man says he didn't vote for
Bush. I suspect Bush is too liberal for him. I invited
him to the list but he declined not very respectfully. But I think
his view is important to know and answer. I'm sure that Kutlow and
Kramer on MSNBC agree with the gist of what he says although they probably are
not of his faith or rationalization. Both claim to have the ear of
the White House.
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.
