Taking the Black 2

A few years ago a woman was conversing about her two children, one was healthy and the other had very poor vision. Of the latter she mused, "He was so close, so close." It was a moment before her meaning was clear: He was not quite impaired enough to qualify for disability. Apparently with just a bit more luck, he could have been officially blind.

Three healthy people I know personally have applied for disability this week. They have diagnoses, they see physicians for them but they are functionally healthy. What they want is to stop working and to have someone else work for them. They want to "take the black" and enter the subsidized life.

A few years ago the religious life was an excellent escape for those who were overwhelmed by the world and its responsibilities. Deep devotion was not required, only a mild personality and an inclination towards doing good. The life was structured, safe--as long as you did not do missionary work--and rewarding. It had the respect of the laity and the assurance of regular meals. The bureaucracy had limited aims so corruption was personal, not on a grand scale. And it provided something special: Community.

Recent numbers show that 8.5 million people are on federal disability rolls, up from 5 million ten years ago. It is gradually becoming a lifestyle, albeit not as rewarding as the old religious life. Like so many of these special subsets in the modern world, it is scheduled to go broke in seven years.

It must be difficult for these government people as they try to replace entities that have evolved over centuries only to atrophy now when they are most needed.

Perhaps faith-based subsidies for monasteries and nunneries?

Taking the Black

The willingness of the government to support financially institutions it feels are "too big to fail" is said to create a "moral hazard;" by indirectly underwriting the errors of these corporations the government may be supporting those very errors. This might encourage people in those corporations to behave recklessly with the knowledge that the government will support them regardless of the outcome. Thus the government might be subsidizing the corporation's errors and indirectly supporting irresponsible behavior.

It is interesting to hear the judgmental "moral" used as it is a rare bird indeed in this culture. But its exclusiveness is more interesting. So many people in this country have "taken the black" and gone into subsidized life. Social security, disability, welfare have all become a secular retreat, like monasteries, away from the work-a-day troubles of the world. Certainly these supports are well intentioned and probably usually well deserved but they are certainly well abused too.

Are they a social moral hazard?