|
Thank you for this, Tor. Here in Canada we've been watching public
schools and other public institutions deteriorate because of underfunding, and
finger-pointing neo-con politicians dancing around them shouting
"Privatize! Privatize!".
Ed Weick
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2003 11:56
AM
Subject: Re: [Futurework] Re: Retreating
welfare state (was: A conservative Christian economists view of Social
Security)
I will support Ray Harrell. Sweden is not at
all dismantling its wellfare state. And it works very well in many ways. I
read last wednesday (yesterday) that the German businessmagazin
"Wirtschaftswoche" in cooperation with researchers from "Empirica Delasasse"
has ranked 214 European regions, all of EU + Swiss and Norway, according to
innovation, industrial strength etc., and the
overall strongest of all European regions is the Stockholm region.
A wellfare state can produce a strong society!!
And the primary schools in Sweden are among the
very best i the World, much better than both in Norway and England, according
to a new international report that I recently saw, and it is not private
schools. All children in Sweden learn til read and write and all the other
stuff etc. And one important reason to this is that Sweden spends a
very large lot of money on schools. The wellfare state works if it
is properly funded. What happens in England is that funding is lacking, and
then the politicians say that it does not work - it is of no use - it is
just a waste of money. And it gets worse. But it does not have to be
that way. The primary schools in Sweden works very well, and they cost a lot
of money. It happens one gets what one pays for!!
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2003 4:07
PM
Subject: [Futurework] Re: Retreating
welfare state (was: A conservative Christian economists view of Social
Security)
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
|
