WELFARE

For purposes of this discussion “welfare” shall be considered in the broadest of terms. It shall include direct welfare (payments to those deemed needy) and indirect welfare (entitlements to corporate tax breaks).

The notion that the government needs to provide for the individual in place of the individual providing for himself or herself is troubling. There is definitely a role for charity and good deeds, but to what extent does that role belong to government? Therein is the probative question.

Since Franklin Roosevelt’s presidency, the country on a whole has embraced a socialist mentality. Government is the provider of all things, replacing individual self-reliance. This has, in turn, led to a society that is far more dependent on “government” to survive.

While we could spend endless hours debating the practicality of having government serve “in loco parentis” (“in place of parents”,although it could also be argued as “crazy parents”) that argument can be had at a later date. For now the focus of this is to understand the derivation of the current socialistic welfare state that has shadowed our society.

The Depression, along with longstanding business leader practices of labor abuses, led to the people wanting to pay high taxes to be protected. This government implemented protection scheme (likely a RICO violation if devised by anyone other than the government) ranged from worker protections, social security, public welfare and more. The government would supplant the family and the various charitable organizations as the source for help.

Great on paper but difficult in practice. Ironically, during this period of mounting socialism in the United States, the people were convinced that they were at risk from communism. The proof of the pudding is that there is clear and convincing evidence that the communistic brand of socialism, with it totalitarian control, failed. Still, our society is, like a moth, drawing ever closer to the flame. While eschewing socialism we grew more socialistic than any other time in our nation. And there is no end to this idiocy.

In our prime our society believed that it could easily solve all the problems related to individual poverty by throwing money at the problems. This led to a wide expansion of the social net. Government welfare balloon and everyone, from the poorest single mother of ten to the corporate titan, wanted his or her piece of the government’s largess.

Politicians, realizing the situation, capitalized on this master-servant style relationship, campaigning to “protect the interests of (your cause here)”. By joining in the parade, these political figures were not statesmen but cheap political hacks. “Every man a King” was not an invitation to Eden but a death sentence.

The rapid expansion of government and its protective role remains unbridled. The government now is expected to have or create a solution for every problem. The unfortunate reality is that the people operating the government are not elected because of ability but because of personality. By putting power in the hands of these “personalities” it is inevitable that the government will fail to implement a proper solution but instead it will opt for a political one.

Thus, we are left with the present system of government “entitlements”, a euphemism for “welfare”. The society, including those that were raised to believe in self reliance, have all become convinced that they are not taking a “hand out”, but instead they are claiming what they are “entitled” to from the government. A mere word has destroyed generations of pride.

This is not an argument to end the ‘entitlement system’. Such a system took societal controllers years to build at the cost of millions to convince the people to relinquish their personal pride to a government. This will not go away anytime soon barring a complete meltdown of government. So, to rectify this situation, the tide must be turned and there must be a resurgence of personal responsibility and the programs that would encourage that type of behavior.

As an aside, it is interesting to note from a political perspective that the Democrats are looking to use socialism to control the people while the Republicans are looking to use surveillance and liberty curtailment to do the same. I leads one to speculate as to whether or not there is a mutual goal that transcends political parties.

For those who despise this government policy of mollycoddling there is resentment that a government would expend sums to maintain control, both political and governmental (something of a ‘bread and circuses’ policy). These folks despise politicians, probably recognizing them for what they largely are – panderers to the weak –physically, mentally, monetarily and more.

For those who are receiving an “entitlement” there is little incentive to give up a benefit. They are oblivious to the need to maintain a functional society and are more self-centered in as far as what they “get” from the system than what they contribute. They love politicians who promise more to them.

While the political battle rages between these two polarized factions, the system goes to shit. Promises for more welfare subsidies and promises to abolish the welfare system win votes for both sides but do little to resolve the burning issue.

There is likely an honest desire in society to help its most needy. I personally share that desire, although through a more private sector based vision. The problem is in defining what is “needy” in a society so complex that it defies classification. Is needy a person at or below the poverty line? In Rhode Island there are many “programs” that define such eligibility at 200% or more above the poverty level. If most people realized this, they would be outraged, but most are too stupid to make coffee and so how can they be expected to contribute anything toward a realistic solution?

As budgets get tighter, politicians become more and more active in their pandering. The mere fact that political action is “vote me and I will protect your benefits” is demeaning and detrimental to the very promise of the “land of opportunity”. Without a doubt, welfare reform is needed.

In the future I will explore the Rhode Island welfare system, the system of corporate welfare and the ever expanding role of government as God. I will also seek to expand on what I believe is needed to save the system.