Weaker Family Ties? Yes, Thank God

Although many on the right mask their desire to destroy Social Security under claims that they want to "preserve" or "reform" it, conservative antipathy to the program dates back to its founding and has deep cultural roots. For example, many conservatives consider it immoral that Social Security has largely taken over the task of caring for the elderly--a task once performed by the family (if at all).

Don't believe me? When I Googled the words "social security morality," the second link yielded was to something called the Future of Freedom Foundation, where I read this article by Father Robert A. Sirico, president of the Acton Institute for the Study of Religion and Liberty in Grand Rapids, Michigan. Key quote:

Just as parents care for their young now, it was once well understood that the middle-aged have a moral responsibility to care for their aging parents. This establishes a social link between the generations, an interdependency which is essential for the continuity of values and habits of a mature people.

Social Security has gone a long way toward severing those ties, freeing people from the responsibility to care for their own parents. It also reduces the incentive to have children, since it is no longer understood that they will be their parents' safety net, should they be needed as the parents age.

I think that what Father Sirico says about Social Security is factually accurate: It does lessen the dependence of the elderly on their children, the burden of responsibility those children carry, and the economic incentives to have a large family. But where Father Sirico deplores these results, I applaud them.

To start with the latter issue: I suppose that, for a Roman Catholic priest, any weakening of the incentive to have children is inherently evil, since it incites people to practice birth control. In a world inhabited by seven billion people making growing demands on a fragile ecosystem, I can't agree. (In any case, would you feel especially loved to discover that your parents conceived you because they hoped you'd be a meal ticket in their old age?)

As for the first issue: Isn't it a positive good that Social Security largely frees the elderly from financial dependence on their children? As an adult with one surviving parent, I'm glad I don't have to worry about sending my mom money to help pay for her rent, food, and occasional trips to play the slots at the nearest Indian casino. It makes me happy to know that, between her own savings and the regular Social Security check, her basic needs are met, regardless of whether or not I feel flush this month.

It has nothing to do with avoiding the expense. I still help to support my mom's old age--but indirectly, through the Social Security taxes I pay. Letting a big, impersonal bureacracy handle the transaction on our behalf makes us both a lot more comfortable than if she had to wonder every month whether I could afford to help her . . . whether I disliked doing it . . . whether I'd mind if she asked for a little extra . . . and whether I expected anything in return.

And looking forward to my own old age, I would hate it if I had to rely on my kids to feed and house me. I strongly suspect that the dominant emotions on both sides would be embarrassment, guilt, awkwardness, resentment, and shame.

With a social safety net in place, relationships between adult children and their parents can be personal and emotional rather than economic. When I'm 70, I want to be able to phone my son or daughter just to chat about baseball or politics or movies . . . not to ask for a handout.

So, yes: Social Security weakens family ties--the kind of ties that most people would find especially chafing. Thank God it does.