The Grey River Argus MONDAY, August 12, 1935. PENSIONS FOR THE POOR IN AMERICA.

Grey River Argus, 12 August 1935, Page 4

The Grey River Argus MONDAY, August 12, 1935. PENSIONS FOR THE POOR IN AMERICA.

Termed the keystone of the Rooseveltian reforms, th ( > Social Security Bill, within the scope of which will come twenty five million workers, not to mention a great many aged, blind, widowed and orphaned, is about to become law. There is indeed'a suggestion that this measure, like that of industrial reform, may on constitutional grounds be outlawed by the Courts. That is evidently the last hope of the wealthy interests, which, after fighting it for a long time, did not at the final reading record one vote against it in the Senate. Yet its enactment is a milestone passed, for the Courts, though they might delay, -will never avail permanently to prevent its operation. Tn view of, the great population of the United States, this is mani festly the record in the way of a pension scheme. Based on a contributory system, it is to obtain nearly a hundred million dollars Government grant for a start, whjle contributions including taxes on payrolls, shared by employers and employees, at a rate of 3 per cent., are calculated to raise by 1950 a fund each year of three thousand million dollars, and by 1980 a fund of fifty thou sand million dollars is anticipated. Pensions for the aged of 65 and over will range up to 85 dollars monthly, subsidised 15 dollars each by the Federal and State Governments. The employers come into the scheme where employees number eight or more. The arrival of these pensions in the United States may be regarded from more than one standpoint They bring the country into line with many others, and meet a need ■which elsewhere became earlier a very pressing one. This country took a leading part in providing old age pensions, but America is going further in including th e blind, widowed and orphaned, as well as the unemployed. The measure is too comprehensive and complex for adequate details to be yet obtainable. In its collective scope, it would appear adequate enough. As regards the individual, circumstances need to be known in order to judge. There is. however, another standpoint from which the new depart lire is to b e viewed. That is in its relation to the question of progress. The progress it denotes is progress towards poverty! It is an admission that, jyhatever the 100 per cent. American used to claim for the opportunity, prosperity and economic freedom of his countrymen generally, he knows now that the case is far otherwise. This measure is a recognition that for .at least a quarter of the community —indeed a majority— security is not their’s, except it be provided Ijy the State. They are not themselves able to make the provision they need when either idle, ill or aged. The truth is that industrial! capitalism, when free to develop. and then to eliminate competition, will everywhere, condemn an increasing proportion of the people' to social insecurity and economic want. In the past seven years, this tendency has nowhere been so suddenly and convincing fly demonstrated as in the United I States. At a stride that country 1 has come into the category of those in which the typical individual is a proletarian, with nothing but his labour to maintain him, and pauperism facing him when he cannot find a buyer. Some will think this measure an unmixed blessing, but it is only at best a painful necessity. It marks clearly the line of demarcation between those who own and are secure, .and those who are propertyless and insecure. All

wage-earners come within its ambit, making plain the maldistribution of the product of industry and also the need for a radical redistribution of ownership in the means of subsistence. America in this instance is not in anywise a pioneer, but a follow in the wake of older coun tries where capitalistic industrialism has been rather longer in possession. It is only when the New Deal is taken as a whole and this Bill as a mere part of it. that hope is justified. Meantime, the Courts have sabotaged other parts of the policy. This Bill may render modern industrialism less unbearable, but if also sabotaged, it will mean either slavery or an upheaval.