|
I don't know about that Keith,
The one thing we can say is that the Communists in
a perpetual war with the West were not able to do it at home. Who knows
what would have happened if they had tended to their own people instead of being
so evangelical. The same problem with the churches here.
They are being run ragged with the policies of outreach that fail to
minister to the needs of their own congregations. You should go
on the Music Ministry lists and listen to the decline in graded choirs for
example. That's your constituency. And I don't see where
private enterprise has done jack sh... when it comes to the "music of the
spheres" here in a huge market with weekly performances. They
have to keep running back to their manual because they aren't doing much
thinking about home for themselves. . Eventually it will all break
down, because at its heart even their manual doesn't support them in
their economics. Also, the Americans' who have immigrated to
Germany to work in the Arts speak of it being a heaven while here is a
hell. They aren't immigrating, I might add, to England either in spite of
your 14 orchestras in London. Do you have labor laws that keep our
instrumentalists and the Russians out? We have absorbed a body
blow here from the very institutions that the American propaganda machine
demeaned, the old Communist arts system. They have flooded our
market with superb musicians, superbly trained and have driven down an already
low standard of living that is only lower in Capitalist Russia
today. And finally, why are all of those people marching in France
and what about the articles that Tor Forde keeps sending from Norway and we
don't have any Chinese, Swedes or Danes on this list. I deal
with them in my business and they aren't crying the same tears you and
I talk about all the time. So maybe the issue is
cultural. Maybe Soros is right. Or maybe you are a
fundamentalist after all?
REH
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2003 2:34
AM
Subject: Retreating welfare state (was: A
conservative Christian economists view of Social Security)
Ray,
I am very far from being a member of
Terrell's constituency but I think he has a stronger case than you care
to admit. It should be more than apparent now than the welfare state in
developed countries does not diminish poverty or degradation -- and is a very
expensive way of not doing so also!
The welfare state in the developed
countries can only exist now by the assent of the non-poor who vote in
elections, so those people have to be bribed, albeit very subtlely. Over my
lifetime there have been more and more ways in which the middle class receive
more subsidies and state help than the poor, whatever complexion of government
is in power. However, as the burden of taxation grows then the bribes have
necessarily become less subtle in order that more of the voters are included
in the net.
However, as in Soviet Russia, there's a limit to how much
the state can tax and redistribute without the whole country falling into a
state of demoralisation. (Of course, I realise that the USSR didn't have a
formal taxation system -- redistribution was done in other ways.) Even in the
arch-welfare states, such as Sweden, they are cutting back on taxation and
welfare redistribution as quickly as they know how. We are probably reaching
the limits of taxation now in developed countries (as the condition of France
and Germany well testifies) and the only way that a right-wing government in
America and a left-wing government in England can maintain the system is by
bribing the middle class.Terrell has a very telling sentence in his article:
<<<<
Cutting benefits will succeed politically only if a
large number are "grandfathered" into the current benefits
setup.
>>>>
. . . which is exactly what is happening. I
don't know the figures for America, but the latest dodge in England is that a
middle-class family earning up to 75,000 pounds per year (US$120,000 -- a very
adequate income you'll admit) is receiving family credits! I doubt whether the
state system (and, remember that there is a large state-employed lobby
whatever political party is nominally in control) can get away with much more,
and I think there will have to be a retreat fairly soon. Some recourse to
Terrell-type nostrums will have to take place. It will probably produce more
problems than we have now but it will at least be affordable.
Keith
Hudson
At 00:21 12/06/2003 -0400, you wrote:
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.
Timothy Terrell teaches economics at a small liberal arts
college in South Carolina. In addition, he is director of the Center for
Biblical Law and Economics, on the Internet at http://www.christ-college.edu/html/cble/.
Dr. Terrell can be contacted at [EMAIL PROTECTED].
Keith Hudson, 6 Upper Camden Place, Bath, England
|
