"Cease to do evil, learn to do good; seek justice, rescue the oppressed, defend the orphan, plead for the widow." (Isaiah 1:17 NRSV) 

by Carolynn B. Race 

Last summer, the 216th General Assembly of the PC(USA) passed a resolution, Reaffirming the Importance of Our Nation's Social Insurance System (Social Security and Medicare). It reaffirms past policy; noting that Social Security and Medicare were enacted to promote the general welfare and to assure a guaranteed income and health care for U.S. workers. As noted by The Rev. Dr. Clifton Kirkpatrick, in a letter to congregations: "These programs enable older Americans, people with disabilities, and their families to live life in fullness."   

General Assemblies have long spoken out for accessible, affordable health care and economic security. In 1983, the 195th General Assembly noted that, we "envision social programs that embody the virtues of interdependence and stewardship, and we commit ourselves to work for their enactment." The Assembly added, "In providing for the physical and social needs of older adults, we strive for a society that is thoughtful and equitable in the distribution of resources, neither shortsighted nor biased but responsive to the needs of all, especially the poor and vulnerable." 

The 2004 resolution reaffirms these aims - and "urges our nation's leaders to support and maintain the fundamental structure and intent of Social Security, expressly that it continue to be:

1. universal, covering all persons in paid employment and their families,
2. compulsory, requiring all working Americans to contribute,
3. an earned right, based on contributions out of past earnings rather than charity,
4. contributory and self-financed, out of dedicated taxes, e.g. wage-related rather than means tested,
5. protected against inflation, by periodic, guaranteed, cost-of-living adjustments, and
6. backed by the full faith and credit of the United States, rather than depending on the erratic performance of the stock market or the unpredictable financial stability and profit interests of a private company."

What changes to Social Security are being considered at the federal level, how does this resolution relate to them, and how can we respond? 

Status of Social Security Issues

In his first press conference following the November election, President Bush outlined principle domestic policy priorities for the next four years. Topping the list was his call for Social Security overhaul, the principle component of which would allow younger workers to divert a part of their payroll tax into private investment accounts. In his State of the Union address Feb. 2, Mr. Bush presented an outline. Though he did not discuss how to finance the plan, he said it would be phased in starting in 2009, and would not affect anyone born before 1950. It would allow those eligible to divert as much as four percent of their taxable wages into accounts they could use to invest in stocks and bonds. Individuals could draw on them after retiring.

Most Democrats oppose the plan. Before the State of the Union, Senate Minority Leader Reid (D-NV) said that Senate Democrats have enough votes to block the proposal on private accounts. Reid noted: "I don't know of a single Democratic senator" who will back the plan, according to The Washington Post. During the State of the Union, many Democrats shouted "no, no," when Mr. Bush said that Social Security was headed for bankruptcy. While Mr. Bush talks about a Social Security "crisis," many Democrats, including House Minority Leader Pelosi (D-CA), consider its long-term solvency a "challenge." Ms. Pelosi noted, "Social Security faces a long-term challenge, but it is a manageable challenge that can be addressed without jeopardizing a system that has provided retirement security for millions of Americans."  

Presbyterian General Assembly Policy

The 2004 resolution builds on past GA actions that support economic security for older Americans. In 1983, the General Assembly said:

The church need not be caught up in (the political) debate of how to modify the current system in order to guarantee its solvency in the short term...It should instead be asking, what is an appropriate means of income redistribution that will protect the well-being of all older adults at this time in our nation's history. Any church recommendations on Social Security ought to arise out of our vision of a covenant community of steward- ship and interdependence. They should take into account not only the value of income redistribution but also the value of work in a covenant community. (Minutes, 1983, p. 345) 

How can Presbyterians lift up the vision of a covenant community of stewardship and interdependence during the Social Security debate?  When talking about Social Security with colleagues, friends, family members, fellow parishioners, and elected officials:

Lift up the importance of Social Security as a guaranteed source of income for many working Americans.  The program lifts up the nation's public commitment to care for seniors, people with disabilities, and their dependents, and builds on the call of Isaiah to "*seek justice, rescue the oppressed, defend the orphan, plead for the widow."  

Raise concern about how individuals and communities would be impacted if benefits were eroded and/or not guaranteed at a certain level.  As the Social Security Administration noted in 2002, the program has been especially crucial to the economic survival of women, who reach retirement with fewer assets than their male counterparts. Without Social Security, more than half of all older women would be poor.  In 2000, the program reduced the number of poor elderly women from 8.9 million to 1.8 million, and the number of poor elderly men from 5.4 million to 750,000.

Discuss the program's interdependent nature. The current system pools everyone together in one risk pool. A concern about privatizing a portion of Social Security is that individuals would not only own their own accounts, they would own their own risk in retirement. Markets go up, but they also go down. How would such a system guarantee a livable income, and how would it lift up the values of interdependence and concern for neighbors?

Consider the costs associated with a move to privatization: There is concern that a move to privatization would have substantial transition costs, as the federal government would be forced to pay the benefits for existing retirees while being deprived of the Social Security payroll taxes that are diverted to private accounts. On Sunday Feb. 6, Vice President Cheney acknowledged that the government "would have to borrow $754 billion over the next 10 years, and conceded that the price tag would involve borrowing trillions of dollars more in subsequent decades." (The Washington Post, 2/7/05, A2) Where would that money come from?

Finally, call on your elected officials to have an honest and transparent debate. Lots of language has been used to describe the current state of Social Security —  "crisis," "challenge," "bankrupt." Call on your Member and the Administration to hold an honest debate about the future of Social Security. 

Border Crossing: Minors in Jeopardy 

by Ivan Herman 

As border security has been tightened, the ability of migrants to return to visit family on a seasonal basis has been increasingly restricted — and has become more dangerous.  In a more desperate economic situation few migrants are willing to leave behind their humble (but steady) jobs in order to make the trip over the border and back again — a trip that could take months.  It is becoming ever more apparent that families are trying to make the border crossings together.

Genesis 12 relates the story of Abram and how he packed up his family and moved to Egypt.  He crossed the border because times were hard:  there was a severe famine in the land.  When he was about to enter Egypt, he told his wife Sarai that they were going to enter under false pretenses.  Abram claimed to be afraid of what might happen if they entered as a family.   

Just as Abram packed up his family and moved to Egypt, so also many migrants will not leave behind their families for an indefinite amount of time in order to seek out a new means of subsistence.  If it is dangerous for migrant men in their prime to cross the deserts, then it is even more dangerous for families, particularly with minors, to also make the attempt.  Many migrant families, not wanting to risk their children in a trek across the desert, will hire a human smuggler ('coyote' or 'pollero') for a few thousand dollars to cross their children through a less life-endangering route after the parents have made it across successfully.   

During a January 4, 2005 tour through the port of entry from Nogales, Arizona, to Nogales, Sonora, Mexico a U.S. Customs and Border Protection officer noted that it is not uncommon for 'coyotes' to drug children or infants with cold medicine or other depressants before attempting to smuggle them across.  Not only does this often put the child to sleep so that the child cannot answer questions from the any border agents they encounter, but also puts the child at risk of an overdose. The ports of entry on the California/Mexico border detained 6,478 undocumented minors (including children and infants) during the 2004 fiscal year.  This number was almost a 17 percent increase over fiscal year 2003.2

But minors are not just crossing with the guidance of 'coyotes' or under protection of their parents or guardians.  Many youths are also trying to cross the border in order to be reunited with family members who have been living and working in the U.S. on a more permanent basis.  "The number of unaccompanied minors caught in Mexico on their way to the United States shot from 697 in 2003 to 3,722 in 2004, according to figures released by [Mexico's] National Immigration Institute." 3

Whether the unaccompanied minors are detained on the Mexican or the US side of the border, the child is returned to Mexico and is often handed over to organizations like DIF (Desarrollo Integral de la Familia, Mexico's equivalent to the Department of Social Services) and put into the care of an orphanage until a parent or legal guardian (and only a parent or guardian) can be contacted to retrieve the minor.  As the numbers of minors detained and returned to Mexico increases, so also does the burden on the social service providers. 

Presbyterians have long been concerned with the effects of migration on families.  The 1981 statement on Mexican migration to the United States affirms, "We are grieved by the extended separation of families in migration patterns and the obstacles to keeping families together.  We admire the courage of immigrants in seeking opportunities in the face of much uncertainty and numerous hazards."4    

Despite the fact that the Republican Party has not listed immigration as one of their top priorities for 2005, in a press conference on January 26, 2005, President Bush reiterated his commitment to immigration reform.  "I know there's a compassionate, humane way to deal with this issue. I want to remind people that family values do not stop at the Rio Grande River. People are coming to our country to do jobs that Americans won't do, to be able to feed their families. And I think there's a humane way to recognize that [and] at the same time protect our borders."5

Footnotes:

1. Bustos, Sergio. "Border czar quits, but Arizona strategy intact." The Arizona Republic. January 25, 2005.
2. Border Patrol Press Release. "10-Year Old Girl Found Inside Car at San Ysidro Port; Two Adults Arrested." Tuesday, January 4, 2005.
3. Hawley, Chris. "Young migrants crossing all alone; more teens try to reach relatives in the US." The Arizona Republic January 19, 2005.
4. 1981 Statement - PCUS, UPCUSA.   Mexican Migration to the United States: Challenge to Christian Witness and National Policy.  
5. Bush, George W. Press Conference on January 26, 2005.

The Widow's Offering 

by Catherine Gordon 

He sat down opposite the treasury, and watched the crowd putting money into the treasury.  Many rich people put in large sums.  A poor widow came and put in two small copper coins, which are worth a penny.  Then He called to his disciples and said to them, "Truly, I tell you, this poor widow has put in more than all those who are contributing to the treasury.  For all of them have contributed out of their abundance; but she out of her poverty has put everything she had, all she had to live on." 

As the tsunami crisis unfolded, the Bush Administration's announcement of its paltry donation of $15 million in aid incited enough criticism that the amount was increased — to $350 million! The criticism sparked a debate: Is the U.S. stingy in what it gives to the developing world? In terms of percentage of national income, the U.S. is at the bottom of the list of developed countries. 

At the Brazil Earth Summit in 1995, officials from developed countries, including the U.S., pledged to increase aid to at least 0.7 percent of national income. Five countries have fulfilled that promise — Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Netherlands, and Luxembourg. The U.S. gives just 0.13 percent, and has fallen behind Italy and Greece — who give 0.2 percent. According to David Roodman (Center for Global Development), the average American gave 13 cents a day and an additional nickel in private giving.1 Compare this to Norway, whose citizens give $1.02 per day in government aid and 24 cents in private. On an annual basis, that averages out to $460, compared to only $65 from Americans. 

Comparisons can be useful, but what we give in relation to actual needs is crucial. One case is malaria, which kills about one million people each year, and is a threat in tsunami areas. David Bryden (Global AIDS Alliance) 2 notes that the U.S. provides only six percent of what experts say is needed. Only $600 million worldwide is being spent on malaria each year; the WHO has estimated that $3 billion is needed. 

Tom Barry (International Relations Center) argues that the U.S. isn't stingy — it is strategic. Barry says, "the administration's 'global war on terrorism' is the main determinant in the distribution of economic aid; not development needs, not humanitarian disasters, not hunger or the increasing numbers of the world population living on a dollar a day or less." 3 HIV/AIDS, malaria, food security, and development aid are low on the list, while restructuring the "Muslim world," and drug eradication in the Andean region are high on the list. 

The Wall Street Journal reported that the Administration is falling behind on its promises to increase funds to fight poverty in the developing world.4Health and development activists are alarmed with the failure to live up to promises made for funding the Millenium Challenge Account (MCA) — a program intended to direct U.S. grants to developing countries whose policies promote economic growth — and its global AIDS initiative, PEPFAR.  

In this budget the Administration continues the trend of committing far less money than promised. For FY2004 Mr. Bush promised to ask for $1.7 billion for the MCA. Instead, he asked for $1.3 billion and got $1 billion. For FY2005 he said he would ask for $3.3 billion. He asked for $2.5 billion and got $1.5 billion.   

The administration is expected to request only $200 million for the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, TB, and Malaria. The Fund is a unique financing tool; essential for the long-term battle against infectious diseases. U.S. contributions equal 13 percent of what the fund requested and 5.8 percent of what is needed from all sources.  

The U.S. can afford to do its share to support AIDS programs, while supporting other programs to help poor countries and to improve health in the U.S. More than $6.7 billion is needed for the U.S. to provide a fair share in response to malaria, AIDS, and TB. AIDS is a serious crisis which needs to be dealt with now.  

To date, the administration has under-funded the Global Fund in its budget. We can save hundreds of thousands of lives each year by fully funding the Global Fund. PEPFAR, the president's AIDS initiative, is insufficient, for it focuses on only 15 countries.  

Urge the president to include $6.7 billion in his 2006 budget to combat AIDS, TB and malaria, with at least $1.5 billion for the Global Fund. Call (202) 456-1111, weekdays before 5 p.m. Call for an increase in spending for international programs. Let your Members of Congress know! Call (202) 224-3121.  

Footnotes

1. David R. Francis, "US foreign aid: Do Americans give enough?" (csmonitor.com: The Christian Science Monitor, 1/6/05).
2. David Bryden, "U.S. Aid for Tsunami-Hit Nations Falls Short," (Silver City, NM & Washington, DC: Foreign Policy In Focus, 1/7/05).
3. Tom Barry, "U.S. Isn't 'Stingy,' It's Strategic," (www.irc-online.org: International Relations Center, 1/7/05).
4. Michael M. Phillips, "Bush Falls Behind on Promises For Antipoverty, AIDS Funding," (New York City: The Wall Street Journal, 1/27/05). 

Ask the Director

by Elenora Giddings Ivory  

Is PC(USA) policy biased against certain parts of the world? 

This is not a new question.  It is currently being asked about our General Assembly policy and actions regarding the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. The annual Human Rights Update, produced by the Advisory Committee on Social Witness Policy, is one of the places where General Assembly Council staff has applied social witness policy.  

In the past, policies were debated on apartheid in South Africa, Northern Ireland religious conflict, Central American wars, and now the Middle East.   

Justice advocates know there are a few groups whose specialty is tracking human rights issues and concerns around the world. The PC(USA) does not need to repeat the huge amount of material gathered by groups like Witness for Peace or Amnesty International. We can point our members to them. But we do need to focus on specific areas where we have contacts, mission co-workers or ecclesial relationships. The PC(USA) General Assembly may also focus on particularly egregious circumstances.

From 1977 through 1992, the GA called attention to South Africa and the oppressive system of apartheid. A 1988 statement said to "[R]equest President of USA to recognize failure of policy of constructive engagement and urged U.S. Congress to impose immediate sanctions against the government of South Africa."

The 1981 UPC General Assembly resolved to ". . . affirm support for all efforts to bring about a peaceful resolution of the conflict in Northern Ireland," commended the work of the Irish churches in promoting peace and reconciliation,  and deplored   ". . . the use of violence and the taking of human life as a way to resolve the conflict . . ." (UPCUSA, 1981).  

The 1990 Assembly approved the resolution Justice and Reconciliation in Northern Ireland, which: 

1. Affirm[ed]. . . efforts to bring about non-violent solutions to the political, economic, and religious strife in Northern Ireland;

2.  Affirm[ed] support for efforts to eliminate discrimination against Roman Catholics in economic and political institutions in Northern Ireland; . . .

4.  Affirm[ed] the need for appropriate foreign investment to alleviate the high unemployment rates that exacerbate religious and political divisions;...

10.  Condemn[ed] those groups or individuals in Northern Ireland who resort to violent means to accomplish their goals or who practice discrimination in economic, education, and political life.

Peace in Northern Ireland was the subject of a GA-approved Commissioner's Resolution in 2001. It "calls for the pursuit of policies to bring about maximum healing of ancient divisions, and secure a peaceful future for all citizens." The divisions were the tensions between Roman Catholics and Protestants. 

From 1985 through 1991, the General Assembly focused on Central American human rights. In 1986, in response to the 198th GA call to investigate situations in Nicaragua, El Salvador, Guatemala and Honduras, the Advocacy Committee on Church and Society developed a study prospectus. Church representatives went to the countries; their task force wrote a report and recommendations.

We now focus on human rights abuses in Darfur, as well as the Middle East, which has been an area of concern to General Assemblies ever since the 1948 PCUSA Assembly declared:  ". . . We believe that a solution to the problem will be achieved only by a return to the principle of faithful devotion to the welfare, needs, and rights of both the Jewish and Arab peoples . . ."  (PCUSA, 1948, p. 203). The 1967 PCUS Assembly supported the cause of peace in the Middle East and wrote: ". . . The General Assembly express[es] deep concern over the unrest and recent conflict in the Middle East, an area which contains much that is sacred to Christian, Jew and Moslem alike, and it registers its wholehearted and prayerful support of individuals and nations who are seeking  to bring peace and concord to that area of the world . . ." (PCUS, 1967, p. 111). 

We have often heard the lament that we cover too many issues. Here is one place where we have focused. Advocates have learned that concentration on certain concerns is more likely to be successful than will too broad an agenda.