
                         Roanoke Times
                 Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.

DATE: MONDAY, January 23, 1995                   TAG: 9501240028
SECTION: EDITORIAL                    PAGE: A-4   EDITION: METRO 
SOURCE: CARROLL SMITH
DATELINE:                                 LENGTH: Medium

THE POOR, OLD UNITED STATES

RAY GARLAND'S Jan. 12 column (``Only a rich nation could afford our welfare system'') made me wonder if there were any rich nations about in the world. The implication is that the United States cannot afford the welfare system, so if there are others that can, we must be a relatively poor nation.

This directly counters the usual conservative catechism where one of the articles of faith is expressed by ``America has the best (fill in the blank with anything) in the world.'' To admit that we're a poor country should be something conservatives would be reluctant to do.

Comparative figures are hard to find, and we've seen a wide variety of political and economic estimates, depending on whose ax is being ground at the moment. What I presume to be an unbiased source is the Encyclopedia Britannica, where one can find data on ``social expenditures'' for the various nations of the world. These figures aren't directly comparable to those cited by Garland, but they do allow comparisons. The source of the Britannica figures is the International Labor Office, under the heading ``The Cost of Social Security.'' For this purpose, Social Security covers old age, invalidity, death, sickness, maternity, work injury, unemployment and family allowances. (These terms are used in the Britannica.) The figures are expressed as a percentage of government expenditures.

In comparing countries of the world, the latest figures show (this report is issued every three years) that the following countries spend proportionally more than the United States for these social services:

Argentina, Australia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Canada, Cape Verde, China, Denmark, Belgium, France, French Guiana, Germany, Greenland, Hungary, Isle of Man, Italy, Luxembourg, Marshall Islands, Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Rumania, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Spain, United Kingdom and Uzbeckistan.

No data was available for Japan or Russia, which is unfortunate because of their special relevance to us. Germany, Sweden and Switzerland spend more than double that of the United States.

This list is made up of the ``advanced industrial democracies'' - nations that we should call our equals. And it appears that they're all ``richer'' than the United States, since they can spend so much on their people.

Just for fun, I went back to 1985 and looked at the figures. At that time, we were closer to the European average. We were still outspent by many of the aforementioned countries, but the differences weren't as great as they are now. In fact, as a percentage of government spending, we were spending 1.6 times (my calculation) as much for these services then as we're doing now.

It seems amazing that these countries can spend so much on social services and not be bankrupt - at least according to conservatives. If anyone travels across Europe, the signs of poverty are well-hidden.

In fact, it seems prosperous. How can this be explained?

Carroll Smith of Shawsville is a psychologist.

by CNB