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.
