The Immorality of Social Security?

A friend recently sent me an article written by Alex Epstein from the Ayn Rand Institute arguing that Social Security is immoral.  It's an interesting point, and it basically centers around the rights and the responsibility of the individual balanced against the responsibility of the State.  Bluntly put, why do we compel hard-working people to give part of their salary to the State for government stewardship, when (A) the money is not always maximized for use in their own retirement, but instead used to finance immediate federal needs, and (B) it essentially is used as a safety net for those who are too irresponsible to save for the future?

I have another friend that works in the Social Security Agency, and this friend has attested to the profligate nature of how funds are disbursed.  The present laws governing the eligibility of individual payments leads to a culture of entitlement for many who choose not to work, but to happily take from the government without any real incentive to work and put back into the system or society.  As taxpayers, there's understandably some angst when hearing stories like this.  Even friends that work in health care clinics have told me that they've been asked for free drugs because "have no money" (the same drugs that can be purchased for $4 at Target or Wal-Mark), but need them up front since they're going to Florida on vacation.  Hmm... isn't it hard to go on vacation when you have no money?

It's clear that for some, there's an entitlement issue which is at play here.  Essentially, things such as cable television, a Nintendo Wii, designer clothes, vacations, and brand new Nike sneakers are not considered things bought from discretionary income - they're considered as entitlements, and society must make adjustments so I can afford things that are truly deemed as necessary, like healthcare, gas for your car, and groceries.

Epstein points out: "The rational and responsible are shackled and throttled for the sake of the irrational and irresponsible."  That is, those of us who act judiciously with good stewardship pay a price financially for those who do not.  Naturally, it's grossly unfair to paint all those who are poor as irresponsible, irrational, and almost predatory in their use of social systems.  There are those who have been affected by situations our of their control who need help.

But even for those who have been careless with their finances, what role, if any, should society play in their rescue?  Epstein argues that there's a place for that in personal charity, but it's wrong for the government to enforce such giving on its citizens.  He may have a point here, though I'd like to think that part of personal responsibility is to care for, and to encourage others to care for those who have, frankly, made mistakes.  There is a fundamental issue of grace here.

For the Christian, we have all the more reason to be agents of this grace.  We are told in Galatians 6 to bear one another's burdens, without any mention of whether these burdens were self-inflicted or not.  In Matthew 25, we are charged to care for strangers, the sick, the hungry, the naked, and those in prison, without any qualifier on whether these people were hungry because of their own poor stewardship or in prison because of their own lawlessness.  We do not love lavishly because the world tells us that it is just to do so.  Christians are called to love and provide for the needs of others as a reflection of the undeserved love that we have received ourselves.  The core of our faith attests that He who was without sin bore the punishment for those who were guilty.  This is grace.

My point isn't to assess the effectiveness or the morality of Social Security as much as to temper the visceral reaction of anger that even I feel when I think about the concept of a "bailout of the irresponsible at my expense."  I simply think it behooves those who count themselves as Christians to remember that there is a far greater bailout that they have been given at a considerably greater expense.