Basic HTML Version
4
gram offers an annual allowance for
each child until he reaches 16, free tui–
tion at college, home-furnishing loans
for newlyweds, rent rebates for large
families, special pensions for widows,
orphans, and invalids. Every age group
is under welfare's umbrella.
Germany's Bismark passed the first
modern welfare laws in 1883. Great
Britain joined the welfare wagon in
1911, under the leadership of Prime
Minister Lloyd George. Today, Britain's
welfare state will provide anything
from a pair of slippers to a house (one
laboree bought two houses on national
assistance!) . On all the social services
- hcalth, pensions, education, unem–
ploymcnt, and housing -
Britain
spends ovcr
9
billion pounds ($22 bil–
lion) per year. That's
jo11r
times
her
defense budget, and neacly one fourth
of her entire GNP!
Britain's welfare system is much criti–
cized for subsidizing indolencc. Many
thousands of Britons
make
more
on
national assistance than they could make
working! But the British case, though
thc most familiar, is certainly not the
most dramatic.
The most striking example of a wel–
farc state gone bankrupt is Uruguay.
Take Uruguay - Please!
Uruguay had everything going for it
- arable farmlaod, more than
90
per–
cent literacy, a thriving cattle industry,
full employment, excellent ports, high
per-capita earnings, and relative políti–
ca! stability in a politically unstable
continent.
Uruguayans were the best fed, best
dressed, best paid, and best educated
people in South America.
José Batlle y Ordoñez, who ruled or
controlled Uruguay between 1903 and
1929, started the nation clown the wel–
farc road. By 1952, the welfare system
began to collapse. Today it is bankrupt,
and dying.
Presently, fully 40 percent of the
population is
mpported
by
the govem–
mmt.
The
UNEMPLOYMENT
cate is
about 30 percent of the work force. The
infiation rate is above 100 percent a
year.
In Uruguay's employment-to-inter–
ment welfare program, about 40 percent
of all workers work for the
central gov-
The
PLAIN TRUTH
emmmt,
and fully half of the popu–
lation is over 50 years of age! Such
combined statistics are unequaJled in the
world's nations.
Why so many elderly?
Because "advanced" welfare services
p rovided retirement at full pay
(oc
more)
beginning somewhere between
ages 48 and 55,
oc
healthy unemploy–
ment benefits for those under
50
who
were out of a job. The obvious con–
clusion:
wh)
work?
Young workers and
those in high tax brackets began
Jeaving
the
c011111ry.
By 1968 the stream
increased to 2,000 emigrants per month
- a brain
and
brawn drain.
How did Uruguay meet all these wel–
fare payments, whi lc fewer tax-payers
remained to produce thc goods and ser·
vices? The nation warmed up the print–
ing presses. The amount of pesos -
and the cost of living -
do11bled
each
year while production
declined.
In 1967,
for instance, cost of living escalated 136
percent. Meanwhile, the "real" GNP
declined!
And the welfare "spi ral" continued .
To handle the governmental chores of
dispensing more welfare, more employ–
ees
were hired.
In
1968, about 40 per–
cent of all laborees "worked" ( only 4 to
6 hours daily) for the government. By
January of 1970, government workers
actually outnumbered all other workers
- 400,000 to 300,000, according to an
Associated Press release - the reverse
of the ratio of a ycar earlier.
Why such a bureaucratic, bankrupt
mess? For Uruguayans, the
something–
for-nothing
syndrome became a way of
life. "Our trouble is that we
do not
want
10
work."
wrote the very news–
paper founded by Uruguay's welfare
champion Batllc y Ordoñez. The lesser
half of the people who worked had to
support the greater half who were either
on the dole or in thc government.
In spite of such obvious problems,
other nations are on the road to becom–
ing carbon copies
o[
these welfare
states. This road could lead to financia!
aod social
min
if thc mistakes others
have made are repeated.
The Presen t Welfare System
look at the U. S. for a moment.
In
1969, federal, state, and local
governments in the United States spent
12
11
10
9
8
Januacy
1971
THE U.S.
WELFARE
EXPLOSION
1965-1970
PUBLIC
ASSISTANCE
1
in Billions of _
Dollarsl
\
133%
GROWTH
IN FIVE
YEARS
1965 1966
1967
1968
1969
1970
S125 billion on all social welfare pro–
grams. Thís huge swn represents onc
sevcnth of the Gross National Product.
The amount is larger than the entire
Federal budget was just five years ago.
About one third of this massive total
goes to
old-age
assistance. Another one
third goes tu public education and the
remaining third to miscellaneous pro–
grams of medica), veteran, unemploy–
ment, disability, and dependent-children
assistance. Only one tenth - $13
bit–
/ion
in fiscal 1970 - went directly to
"public assistance" (tbe category most
people associate with welfare, or the
"dole"). Such spending has more than
do11bled
since 1965 and now is doled
out to over
12 mi
Ilion
Americam.
The largest program of public assist–
ance - measured by either human lives
or dollars spent - is the Aid to
Families with Dependent Chi ldren