My Art History teacher mentioned something in passing in class today which gave me pause. Talking about ancient Rome, he noted that one of the first "cracks" in what would eventually be its downfall was that it effectively became a "welfare city" supporting a giant populace with high unemployment using government funds and excessive taxes on the provinces. Where have I heard that before?
Being an Anti-Federalist is difficult, since you tend to seem like a villain whenever you advocate spending less on welfare: "How could even SAY that?!? Do you want these people to STARVE? What kind of monster are you!?!?" I just fear one of two things happening. The first being that China, Saudi Arabia, and the rest of these countries that own our debt suddenly realize that our debt is worthless and that they don't want to buy anymore of it until we pay some back. The other is that the bankrupt government begins to lose the ability to pay for roads, police, and military, suddenly leaving the poor, impoverished people in a much worse state than they were in before.
Don't think that I oppose supporting the destitute. I do. PRIVATELY. It's not the government's job. As John Smith said to the first colonists of this country: "If you don't work, you don't eat." People can't leech off of the government, which is held up primarily at this point by tradition, a large military, and a whole truckload of as-yet-unfulfilled promises. The problem is, welfare programs attempt to create equality of society. That is known as socialism. The Constitution does not encourage, in fact discourages this sort of thing. It guarantees us our right to property, the sanctity of contracts, and equality of OPPORTUNITY. Not equality in fact, equality in opportunity. Because, believe it or not, people are different, and to the government, which is only concerned with our physical well-being, not all people are equal.
Now, to believers in a charitable religion such as Christianity, Islam, or Buddhism, all have equal worth in God's eyes, and thus are worth saving, protecting, and lifting up. But this is the job of private institutions like the church, not the government. People have to be able to choose generosity. The government should not be taking money out of one person's hands and giving it to another. The Constitution protects my right to be a greedy uncharitable bastard, should I choose to do so (though I hope I don't and am not).
The British sailors, according to the song, said "SINK THE BISMARCK!"
Modified for a more relevant purpose,
"SHRINK THE GOVERNMENT!"
It's interesting that you would start a blog post on politics based on what your art history teacher said... I would have liked to hear some more of that conversation. It's also interesting that you would pick welfare as your target. While welfare is a large chunk of our budget (about 584 billion was set aside in 2009 for Medicaid, CHIP, unemployment, etc.), it is by no means the biggest expenditure. That honor would go to Social Security, a system that is failing with the pressures placed upon it by an aging generation. We also spend a similar amount on defense. Frankly, the comparison to Rome is probably not too far fetched. Our government will fail without reform, and the people who should be doing the reforming are busy lining their pockets with money from big corporations.
ReplyDeleteYour argument that welfare should belong to the private sector is a nice thought, but it is really not feasible. The average church (in my own experience) now suffers from declining membership and has to pay it's own bills in this terrible economy. Less money coming in means less money going out. How many churches do you know about that could support even one family on $1000-1500 a month, let alone fill the needs of an entire area? It's much easier to force people to give through their tax dollars. Besides, people who are helped by the government are less likely to question any of the decisions it makes, as long as their check is in the mail. It's an easy way to keep the poor in line, so to speak, and prevent revolt.
On a more personal note, I see that you have fallen victim to one of the oldest myths there is about welfare - that everybody on the dole just doesn't want to work. Yes, welfare fraud does happen, but it happens far less than conservative news would have you believe. Many on welfare cannot work because of mental illness, physical disability, etc. and do not have anyone to take care of them. Some of them are mothers who chose not to abort their babies (something you support) and had more children than they could take care of. It happens. If you are not willing to help take care of the children of the poor, then you should support abortion. Although I do not know much about you (not much more than that you are a college student), I can already see that you have probably never had to worry about whether the water/electricity was going to be on when you got home, whether you would have more to eat that day than the free lunch provided by the public school. Your parents are probably paying for you to go to college.I realize that this last argument is more of an emotional one, but it happens in more cases than you would think. Some of your friends in college have probably had these types of experiences.
I realize that this response ran a little long, but I think that each side should be shown equally.