US Constitution and Catholic Doctrine (subsidiarity)

[RobertLGarrett]

How then does one fund and administer these programs with equality for all on a local level when the past history of equality seems to have varied greatly with locality? According to Catholic Social Doctrine people have a right to a job, a living wage, the right to organize and form unions, etc. Unfortunately the involvement of higher levels of government while it solves some problems leads to others.

That’s interesting. So, are you in favor of having the UN mandate everything globally? If not, why not?

EDIT ADD…sorry, misread your post.

Yes, I agree it is a difficult balance to maintain.

 

[RobertLGarrett]

How then does one fund and administer these programs with equality for all on a local level when the past history of equality seems to have varied greatly with locality? According to Catholic Social Doctrine people have a right to a job, a living wage, the right to organize and form unions, etc. Unfortunately the involvement of higher levels of government while it solves some problems leads to others.

Regarding the “right to a job,” be careful not to misread the Social Docrine:

1. Employment problems challenge the responsibility of the State, whose duty it is to promote active employment policies, that is, policies that will encourage the creation of employment opportunities within the national territory, providing the production sector with incentives to this end. The duty of the State does not consist so much in directly guaranteeing the right to work of every citizen, making the whole of economic life very rigid and restricting individual free initiative, as much as in the duty to “sustain business activities by creating conditions which will ensure job opportunities, by stimulating those activities where they are lacking or by supporting them in moments of crisis”.[630]

This seems to me to say that the role of the federal government through economic stimulus, monetary policy…and yes, even “bail-outs”…is licit because of the importance of employment.

Regarding “living wage” it is my opinion that it should be determined locally (state/county), but I don’t know how to mandate it federally. IOW…it would be nice to tell the states that they must ensure a “living wage,” but how the heck do you quantify it??

 

[Ridgerunner]

Regarding the “right to a job,” be careful not to misread the Social Docrine:

This seems to me to say that the role of the federal government through economic stimulus, monetary policy…and yes, even “bail-outs”…is licit because of the importance of employment.

Regarding “living wage” it is my opinion that it should be determined locally (state/county), but I don’t know how to mandate it federally. IOW…it would be nice to tell the states that they must ensure a “living wage,” but how the heck do you quantify it??

I think “living wage” would be exceptionally difficult to define with precision under any circumstance. I know people whose income puts them at the “poverty line”, and live modestly, but quite well. I have also seen people whose income is several times that go bankrupt. Never will I forget one man and woman I knew quite well, who lived in the country. The entire lighting for their house consisted in three lightbulbs mounted on the ceilings of three rooms. Their heat was wood and nothing else. The man basically hunted and fished for their food, though he did occasionally work for wages and cut and split trees for oak fence posts. The wife occasionally worked for wages but mainly gardened and canned. They had two hives of bees and a few chickens. They usually had a hog. They lived to pretty advanced ages. She died, then he died. They had two daughters,both of whom they put through college somehow. I am confident they never had health insurance. After his death, the daughters spoke to me, and the old couple had $300,000 in the bank when the man died. I guess one would have to say they made a “living wage” based on the result, but no one would have said it based on the incomes or on the visible way in which the people lived.

It almost seems to me that “living wage” would have to be thought of by reference to “opportunity” to provide the basics of life to oneself and one’s family. But there are so many choices people can make that increase or decrease their needs for money that I think defining it would be nearly an impossible task.

I think the economy is the determining factor; that government alone cannot guarantee a “living wage” by fiat. It can only do those things that are conducive to productivity generally, and refrain from doing those things that retard it.

 

[RobertLGarrett]

I think “living wage” would be exceptionally difficult to define with precision under any circumstance. I know people whose income puts them at the “poverty line”, and live modestly, but quite well. I have also seen people whose income is several times that go bankrupt. Never will I forget one man and woman I knew quite well, who lived in the country. The entire lighting for their house consisted in three lightbulbs mounted on the ceilings of three rooms. Their heat was wood and nothing else. The man basically hunted and fished for their food, though he did occasionally work for wages and cut and split trees for oak fence posts. The wife occasionally worked for wages but mainly gardened and canned. They had two hives of bees and a few chickens. They usually had a hog. They lived to pretty advanced ages. She died, then he died. They had two daughters,both of whom they put through college somehow. I am confident they never had health insurance. After his death, the daughters spoke to me, and the old couple had $300,000 in the bank when the man died. I guess one would have to say they made a “living wage” based on the result, but no one would have said it based on the incomes or on the visible way in which the people lived.

It almost seems to me that “living wage” would have to be thought of by reference to “opportunity” to provide the basics of life to oneself and one’s family. But there are so many choices people can make that increase or decrease their needs for money that I think defining it would be nearly an impossible task.

I think the economy is the determining factor; that government alone cannot guarantee a “living wage” by fiat. It can only do those things that are conducive to productivity generally, and refrain from doing those things that retard it.

Exactly. I read this book a long time ago…Self Made in America.

In it, one of the individuals profiled came here penniless from Viet Nam. He took a job in a bakery owned by a distant relative. He lived in the bakery - sleeping in the back, washing up in the sink, eating surplus baked goods, etc. He eventually convinced the owner to sell him the bakery. He continued to live in the bakery for three years, paying off the previous owner entirely. He then finally moved into a sparse apartment and lived off of 20% of his earnings. The guy is a multi-millionaire now. Did he have a living wage at that bakery?

Now, I’m not saying that his path is one that everyone should choose, or that a “living wage” should be enough for you to live in the back of a bakery, but it does put “poverty” in perspective.

 

[ribozyme]

Exactly. I read this book a long time ago…Self Made in America.

In it, one of the individuals profiled came here penniless from Viet Nam. He took a job in a bakery owned by a distant relative. He lived in the bakery - sleeping in the back, washing up in the sink, eating surplus baked goods, etc. He eventually convinced the owner to sell him the bakery. He continued to live in the bakery for three years, paying off the previous owner entirely. He then finally moved into a sparse apartment and lived off of 20% of his earnings. The guy is a multi-millionaire now. Did he have a living wage at that bakery?

Now, I’m not saying that his path is one that everyone should choose, or that a “living wage” should be enough for you to live in the back of a bakery, but it does put “poverty” in perspective.

Let’s say that story is true, and let’s say that anyone could have the same outcome. Does it follow that everyone could have the same outcome? Anyone could become rich, but could everyone become rich?

Soros at one point was penniless in London, but how many people who were in his state end up to be successful speculators? Probably only a few.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Let’s say that story is true, and let’s say that anyone could have the same outcome. Does it follow that everyone could have the same outcome? Anyone could become rich, but could everyone become rich?

Soros at one point was penniless in London, but how many people who were in his state end up to be successful speculators? Probably only a few.

And may God be thanked for it.

“Rich” is a totally relative thing. An African tribesman with ten emaciated cows is “rich” compared to one who has only one. A primeval hunter with an antelope haunch was “rich” compared to a neighbor who had only a handful of ants to eat.

I remember a friend of mine who, with a partner, decided to buy a semi tractor and trailer, hire a driver and make lots of money. After pouring money into it, they discovered that the driver had been skimming; cheating on the mileage and the fuel and all kinds of things. When confronted,the driver protested that my friend and his partner were “rich” and shouldn’t complain. The partner retorted “But you don’t understand that we’re just poor on a different level!” I enjoyed that story.

Virtually every American is “rich” compared to somebody in Zimbabwe who is not one of Mugabe’s thugs.

So it is logically impossible for everybody to be “rich”, because “rich” only has meaning by comparison.

 

[jc-servant]

Most social programs are not designed for those who are unable to help themselves. Most are designed as “middle class welfare”, in the sense that people who can work and have prospects for economic improvement are the recipients of most of the state’s largesse. Meanwhile, in this country, the neediest of all; the disabled needy (SSI) receive less than $600/month. When he reaches 65, every billionaire will be entitled to receive the maximum possile social security benefit without needing a dime of it. On the other hand, the neediest get virtually nothing.

In my opinion, that whole setup is profoundly wrong. It is all the more wrong when it is based on the total falsehood that people “paid it in”; that Social Security is some kind of “savings account”. Benefits bear some relationship to contributions, but the reality is that there is no “fund”. It’s just a tax on present wage earners to pay prior or current wage earners. Such benefits should be need based, but are not.

Your post has mingled multiple programs under the Social Security Administration as if they are the same thing in order to support your theory. When the facts are examined regarding the various separate programs that you comingled, I believe that your assertions don’t hold water. The real info is readily available at www.ssa.gov but I will give you a summary below.

1. Supplemental Security Income (SSI) is a program that provides cash payments to adults and children who can prove with appropriate evidence that they are disabled as it is defined in the applicable law. There are caps on other sources of income and resources for this program and no requirements that the disabled person contribute or have any work history. It is a true “welfare” program for the needy, not the middle class. If someone is truly middle class then they will not meet the income/resources test for eligibility.
2. Disability Insurance Benefits (DIB) is a completely separate program where people must prove that they are disabled using the same definition that is applied for SSI, but these people must be fully insured due to their contributions while they were working. It is just what the name states, an insurance program.

No one expects a car insurance company to replace their car if they have not paid sufficient premiums over the correct time period to be insured when the accident occurs. However, I see people all of the time who expect to get benefits from DIB when they are not insured due to insufficient earnings or a lack of work for a sufficient amount of time. A person does not need to be rich or even middle class to remain insured under this program since the amount required to maintain insured status is something less than $600 per month in earnings. A person could work at minimum wage for less than full-time hours in a month and still earn a quarter of coverage that counts toward making them insured.

1. Social Security’s retirement program is totally separate from the disability programs I mentioned above. People must contribute to the system while they are working or they cannot draw anything from this program under their own number. There are instances where a widow/widower can elect to draw these benefits under the number of their deceased spouse because that person had a higher earning history and would have been entitled to higher benefits in retirement. This provision protects the homemaker who never worked from being totally destitute if her husband worked and contributed to the retirement program.

Those with really high incomes do benefit from a cap on how much of their income is subject to mandatory contributions for this retirement program. It therefore leaves them more income to invest elsewhere and possibly earn themselves a higher return for their money.

Of course those who pay in the maximum in mandatory contributions under the retirement program are going to be eligible to draw the max in retirement benefits. This is not a welfare program, so those who pay more get more. No one would expect a janitor and a CEO at a private company to draw the same amount in retirement if they had a retirement plan based on their contributions of a percentage of their salaries over the years.

The retirement program is not supposed to be someone’s only income during retirement, but many people end up in that situation. It points out the need for the program to cast a safety net for those who did not otherwise save and invest during their working years in order to fund their retirement. Before this program people were free to starve once they could not continue to work and retirement was not something that most Americans ever experienced.

I personally don’t want to return to relying on the hope that individuals and private groups will help our seniors or those who are totally disabled. We cannot count on human kindness to prevail in every instance even when it is a relative in need, so why would we expect people to support needy strangers? Donations are already down to charities and churches since the economy hit the skids, so at the time that the most people are in need, the very groups proposed as a replacement for governmental assistance are least able to help.

 

[ribozyme]

And may God be thanked for it.

“Rich” is a totally relative thing. An African tribesman with ten emaciated cows is “rich” compared to one who has only one. A primeval hunter with an antelope haunch was “rich” compared to a neighbor who had only a handful of ants to eat.

I remember a friend of mine who, with a partner, decided to buy a semi tractor and trailer, hire a driver and make lots of money. After pouring money into it, they discovered that the driver had been skimming; cheating on the mileage and the fuel and all kinds of things. When confronted,the driver protested that my friend and his partner were “rich” and shouldn’t complain. The partner retorted “But you don’t understand that we’re just poor on a different level!” I enjoyed that story.

Virtually every American is “rich” compared to somebody in Zimbabwe who is not one of Mugabe’s thugs.

So it is logically impossible for everybody to be “rich”, because “rich” only has meaning by comparison.

I want to use an absolute benchmark, let’s say such as having the current purchasing power of a million USD. Do you think everyone can have that (based on how I stated my previous sentence, giving everyone one million USD won’t work)? Do you think everyone can own yachts. Is it physically possible?

In it, one of the individuals profiled came here penniless from Viet Nam. He took a job in a bakery owned by a distant relative. He lived in the bakery - sleeping in the back, washing up in the sink, eating surplus baked goods, etc. He eventually convinced the owner to sell him the bakery. He continued to live in the bakery for three years, paying off the previous owner entirely. He then finally moved into a sparse apartment and lived off of 20% of his earnings. The guy is a multi-millionaire now. Did he have a living wage at that bakery?

I am not impressed because everyone cannot follow that path. My definition of “rich” was based on whether the aforemetioned guy was rich (let’s use that definition). For every person like that, there are many who aren’t as forunate.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Your post has mingled multiple programs under the Social Security Administration as if they are the same thing in order to support your theory. When the facts are examined regarding the various separate programs that you comingled, I believe that your assertions don’t hold water. The real info is readily available at www.ssa.gov but I will give you a summary below.

I personally don’t want to return to relying on the hope that individuals and private groups will help our seniors or those who are totally disabled. We cannot count on human kindness to prevail in every instance even when it is a relative in need, so why would we expect people to support needy strangers? Donations are already down to charities and churches since the economy hit the skids, so at the time that the most people are in need, the very groups proposed as a replacement for governmental assistance are least able to help.

Never did I say the various SS benefits are identical. But they are all administered under the same agency and work in a theoretically complementary fashion. Thus, they are all rather inconsistent parts of one program.

People generally apply for SSI and SSD at the same time, and the process allows for that. The reason being that since disability is a critical criterion for both, but since the past tax paid may be questionably adequate to reach the “threshhold” for SSD, it is prudent to apply for both benefits at the same time. Dual applications are processed as one, and one is put in one or the other depending on the outcome of the initial determination or the appeals to the Administrative Law Judge or the U.S. District Court of Appeals, wherever it ends up.

It starts to get weird when one considers that if one is a bit short on contribution or “quarters”, and thus assigned to SSI, one’s eligibility is “means tested” when it comes to assets. (income too, but that’s another thing) SSD, however, is not. SS Retirement is not. Therefore, one might have immense wealth and still receive SSD or SS Retirement, but far less would disqualify one from SSI. Income from investments is disqualifying under SSI, but not under SSD or SS Retirement.

If one receives SSI, one is not eligible for Medicare until age 65, whereas if one is SSD, one is eligible after two years, regardless of age or financial ability to obtain private insurance. One dollar in contribution long or short could make the difference between being in one program or the other. Allowance is made for younger disabled workers, so that a very young worker might qualify for SSD whereas if he was older when he became disabled, he would be SSI notwithstanding that he had contributed more to the system.

It’s possible to qualify for both SSD and SSI at the same time.

I realize the system is supposed to be “payback” for contributions made in the past. However, the two really aren’t related, except when it comes to the distinction between being eligible for SSI only rather than SSD, and the benefit level. Absurdities abound. If one became disabled at some time when he was paying in the maximum, he would be paid at the maximum as long as he remained on SSD, which could be for life. If, however, he went all the way to retirement age without becoming disabled, and the maximum contribution changed upward in the meanwhile, his benefit would be less than the SSD benefit.

There is no actuarially sound relationship between what is “paid in” and what is “paid out” under any social security program. That’s part of the reason the whole program is scheduled to go broke.

My point in all of this is not, and was not, to say there are no distinctions among the various benefits, and your suggestion of disingenuousness on my part is duly noted. I assure you, however, that disingenuousness was not my intent. I am aware of the theories underlying each program. I did, and do, note in passing that the “social safety net” programs do not address need well, and the political rationales for each are not all that rational. Those in greatest need tend to receive the least, while those in least need, and many with no need at all, tend to receive the most. But because we are talking about Catholic social doctrine here, it is my fundamental position that the social safety net programs we now have are not consistent with it.