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.
