The debate over how to deal with the approaching crisis in the Social Security system is gathering steam. As we watch it come down the track we should get a classic example of why the social encyclicals emphasize general principles of social justice, rather than mandate one economic school of thought over another.
Why do I say that? Because I can’t think of a single proposal making the rounds that is inherently incompatible with the Church’s social teachings, up to and including abolishing the whole system. I’m serious. The general principle of social justice we must keep in mind when considering what to do about Social Security is clear. The nuts and bolts required to bring it about are not.
The general principle? Pope John Paul II stated it clearly in his 1991 encyclical Centesimus Annus. When we organize our economic life “it is a strict duty of justice and truth not to allow fundamental human needs to remain unsatisfied and not to allow those burdened by such needs to perish.” That includes the elderly. We must do all within our power to ensure that they have access to the material resources needed to live out their lives in dignity. If that requires state action and high taxes, so be it. John Paul II is unequivocal on this point. He instructs us that there are times when the market “must be appropriately controlled by the forces of society and by the state so as to guarantee that the basic needs of the whole of society are satisfied.”
But here’s the rub: It is not self-evident that we are at one of those times in regard to the Social Security system. In fact, we may be at a time when less state action is required. Literally. There is no reason why a Catholic could not contend in good conscience that abolishing the entire system would be the best thing we could do to help the elderly. How could anyone say that? Easy. Anyone who sincerely believes that most Americans would be able to take the money they currently pay over their lifetimes in Social Security taxes and provide for their own retirements better than the Social Security Administration, is free to make that case.
What about those elderly who do not invest wisely and who find themselves without enough money to live in dignity? We could provide them with welfare payments equal to whatever they currently get from Social Security. It could be argued that it would be cheaper to do that than maintain the current Social Security system; that the comfortable retirement accounts most Americans would be able to build for themselves with the money they no longer have to pay in Social Security taxes would more than make up for the taxes required to provide welfare for the relatively few indigent elderly who fall through the cracks.
You say what? You don’t think that would work? To tell you the truth, neither do I. But that is irrelevant. The point is that any quarrel we have with those who think it would work would be a quarrel over economics and math, not a question of morals. Remember, in the above scenario most elderly Americans will find themselves living more comfortable lives with their private accounts than they currently enjoy with their Social Security checks. And those who have not acquired substantial private accounts will be given welfare payments comparable to what they now receive in Social Security. What is immoral about that?
You can call someone who makes the above proposal economically naïve; you can question his mathematical calculations. You may argue he doesn’t understand human nature; that most Americans would not put away on their own sufficient funds to provide for their own retirement incomes. Fair enough. Get out your abacus and show us the numbers. But you can’t assume that he is motivated by a base self-interest, or that he is insufficiently deferential to the Magisterium. And if that is true for someone who wants to abolish the Social Security system, it is even truer for someone who supports President Bush’s proposal to privatize merely a portion of it.
The same logic applies, of course, when considering someone who favors making no changes whatsoever in the current system, that is, someone who argues that we should raise the taxes on working Americans to whatever level is required to guarantee that future generations of Americans will receive the same level of benefits as current retirees. We have all heard the math about the coming train wreck if we do that; that the day is fast approaching where there will be only two or three Americans of working age to pay the taxes required to provide benefits for the enormous increase in the number of retirees as the baby boomers become senior citizens.
But what if someone looks at those widely publicized numbers and shrugs? What if he concludes there is no better use of tax dollars than providing lives of dignity for the elderly; that he would rather have us “transfer wealth” in this manner than finance the military and the space program and build more bridges and tunnels?
Is it economic illiteracy to make that case? Probably. But, once again, the way you would argue against higher taxes to pay for Social Security is with graphs and charts and economic models, not with the social encyclicals. It cannot be argued that, say, a 25% tax rate is moral and that a 35% rate is not. These are matters of practical judgment. There is nothing immoral about a Catholic concluding that a wealth transfer payment, even one of the magnitude required to maintain the status quo of Social Security, is what John Paul II meant when said the free market must be “appropriately controlled by the forces of society and by the state so as to guarantee that the basic needs of the whole of society are satisfied.”
My point? If we cannot make the case that even these two extreme positions in the debate over Social Security (abolishing the system altogether, on one hand, or making no changes at all, on the other) are out of line with the Church’s social teachings, how can we argue that any of the more modest proposals currently being debated in Congress and in the media crosses the line?
It would be different if we were hearing talk about how the world would be better off if the elderly poor starved to death instead of draining the resources of fitter younger people; or if someone were arguing that we need someone like Stalin or Castro to ensure that the resources of society are allocated fairly in the future. There are numerous passages in the social encyclicals that condemn propositions such as those. But what we are hearing from Rush Limbaugh and Ted Kennedy about which taxes to raise and which benefits to cut are not in the same category. The Church leaves us free to consider both sides in this debate, and opt for the proposal that makes the most sense to us.
James Fitzpatrick's new novel, The Dead Sea Conspiracy: Teilhard de Chardin and the New American Church, is available from our online store. You can email Mr. Fitzpatrick at fitzpatrijames@sbcglobal.net.
(This article originally appeared in The Wanderer and is reprinted with permission. To subscribe call 651-224-5733.)