The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1896-04-12
GOVERNMENT INSURANCE.

The Tribune does not agree with US
in the matter of government insurance
of postoffice employees. 1t says that
"the shrewdest business men in the
world insure their lives" Very true,
and very wise and business like thing
ITO do But how do they do it? Vol
unfairly and not by compulsion. We
also agree with our contemporary that
the amount to be taken from the en-
ployees is small in itself. 1t would
also be secure in the hands of the gov
eminent; this no one doubts. Our con-
temporary further says:
Our contemporary says, "The carriers
can look after their own interests bet
ter than the government cam We
affirm that in nine cases out of ten,
that is not true. That is, we say the
ordinary carrier. if his salary was.
say $50 a month, would spend more
than S120 a month in fooliShness II
that $1.2O was reserved from his salary,
he would never feel it, and the result
would be that upon his becoming in
capacitated he would not be an abso-
lutte pauper The most pitiable sight
that one sees when he goes to Wash
ington is old employees of the govern
n1ent who have been in the departments
for years, who know nothing else, who
cannot possibly get outside and make
an honest livelihood They are mere
wrecks, living haphazard lives as best
they can, and spending every day their
time as petty beggarS or petty brig
ands, living on what they can beg or
on what in one or another petty scheme
! they can wiring from outsiders.
If this logic is correct, then is it not
true that in nine cases out of ten the
government could take better care of
its citizens than they can take of them
selves? We think it is. Is not the
picture painted by our contemporary
one that depicts the condition of per-
haps the greater portion of the people
in this world who depend upon their
own labor for their livelihood?
We think our contemporary will
agree wibh us that government employ
ees have "softer snap than other
employees, as rule Then why should
there be more solicitude for their well
fare when they become old than for
any other class of citizens?
Now why do we think the whole
scheme is wrong? Because we think
it is paternalism. 1t is an assumption
that the government is wiser than the
citizen, that without its fostering care
he will not be able to take care of
himself. If it is right that the gov
eminent should insure it's employees
against want in old age, at their eX-
sent, then to US it seems but logical
that the government should do the
same with all its citizens, for under
our theory Of government there are no
favored classes. Moreover, if it has
this right it should have the right to
say in what occupations they shall
engage, for their failure in life re-
suits mostly from a bad choice of oc-
cupation. Their failure is due to an
incompetenoy to choose an occupa ton
fitted to their abilities The result of
all this is state socialism.
Says our contemporary:
1t is right on the line of the business
sentiment of the country. 1t is right
on the line of the steady struggle that
is going on in one way and another
to improve the conditions of the wage
Garner, and in little way to guard his
old age against the sufferings which
come from absolute poverty.
Our sympat thy with and desire for an
Improvement in the condition of the
wage-earner is as great as anybody's
but we frankly confess that we do not
desire it at the price of state socialism.
To us it seems that the tendency of
the times is toward this very socialism
and that this plan to compel postoffice
employees to insure themselves against
want in old age is a case in point in
our own government. And because of
this we are opposed to this compulsory
insurance.
Is not our contemporary advocating
the very plan of insurance for old
age that Bismarck tried to enforce in
Germany and failed? He would have
made this insurance compulsory on
all. no matter by whom employed He
dared to put in practice the conclusion
that followed from his premises.