More on the Role of Government- for A and L

I so enjoyed Lavender's and Anonymous' comments. Both make essential points about the role of government and its interdigitation with society. I did not really fully define my thoughts about this, in part because I was tired and in part because the post would have been the length of a book. Here then are my thoughts about the issues raised by L and A, and I invite further comment, disagreement, suggestions, etc, all of which will be published.

 I feel the federal government should not have any programs benefiting individuals because it has no constitutional power to create them. Our nation required a constitutional amendment before allowing income taxes, but we have done nothing while ceding a much larger amount of power to our government. We should end that. It does not help matters that we can not afford to run these programs.

 Clearly society must make provision for the poor, the destitute, the deformed, the incapable (I sound a bit like Scrooge here for a moment. 'At this festive season of the year it is more than usually desirable to make some small provision for the poor and destitute). We are currently doing this through our Federal government, and to end such programs abruptly would cause terrible social dislocation. Ending them would have to be gradual. For those 50 and older (45 and older can be argued) I would guarantee Social Security retirement while completely eliminating it for everyone else. For Medicare I would immediately end cardiac procedures, cancer treatment and most other vascular surgeries immediately. While these procedures may lengthen the lives of the recipients, they do nothing for the general welfare, the charge given to the Federal government. Medicare would continue, less these procedures, for those over 50 (or 45), and end for those under that age.

 Our perspective has clearly become accustomed to the Federal government providing services to the elderly, poor and disabled. The comments reflect a difficulty we all have in imagining other ways of fulfilling the needs of society. Prior to these programs, however, society still had those in need of assistance; indeed, the proportion of people needing societal help has gone down, not up, as measured against the living standards of 1870. We have defined 'poverty' to be a level of physical comfort quite unimaginable to prior societies. By constantly shifting the 'poverty line' for inflation, the government gets to create a statistic that 'justifies' the ongoing existence of programs which achieve nothing. Society had a perfectly clear idea of those who needed assistance in the past- they had no homes, no food, no clothing, no care. Part of the problem in imagining a replacement of the Federal government is imagining duplicating what it does now. That is neither appropriate or necessary, and likely as unaffordable for local agencies as for the Feds.

Care for the needy of society would be provided by churches, charities, local food banks and other such entities. The need for such groups would prompt their resuscitation and invigoration I believe. Not a few people are disillusioned with church, but might very well attend if they knew their time and money went to assist the indigent. The organization of society would certainly change in this and other regards for the provision of social services.

I believe the heartless scenarios where the employed simply ignore the poor and needy are merely ways to frighten and/or shame people into continuing to provide Federal services. When provided by the government services are subject to governmental regulation beyond the control of voters, precisely the interest of those groups creating these scenarios. In fact local and private initiatives are not slow or short when answering the need of society. The recent flap over Susan G. Komen and Planned Parenthood is just one example. Komen is a private charity (although a very bad one, using 87% of its income on administration). PP is a quasi-private organization. When threatened with loss of funding, PP managed to get 3 million dollars in donations in less than a week. Far from replacing the inadequate efforts of society, Federal programs inhibit and discourage private efforts for similar purposes.

The availability of the Feds to fix social problems has let everyone off the hook. While some readily acknowledge the enabling behavior of the Federal government with respect to poverty, lack of education and unplanned pregnancy, its enabling of social decathection is just as damaging. The wealthy pay their taxes and are then relieved of thinking about social suffering. No one has to do anything themselves, they simply pay their taxes and use their church as a religious social club. They only think of local charities when they want a tax deduction for old items. Without Federal programs such decathection would not be possible.

Just as decathection and uninvolvement have been fostered by a system making the Federal government responsible, dependency has been fostered among those receiving Federal largesse. No one will take work that pays less than SSI, food stamps and AFDC (TNAF as is more accurate). But the aid to the impoverished should encourage effort and self reliance, not destroy it. When help is given personally, it fosters involvement. When it is received personally, it fosters a sense of responsibility. No one wants to take from the hand while looking into the eyes- watch the devastating scene in 'Cinderella Man' for the pain of asking for help from those you know- but it is easy to take from a bureaucracy we feel exists only to help us. We are simply receiving that to which we are entitled. We hear about 'our fair share' of Federal dollars, and 'you may be entitled to governmental money' in ads. Governmental social programs enable failure, enable dependency, and create conditions best suited to- maintaining governmental programs!

Neither the decathection nor the enabling of a federal system prevents society from doing better for itself as well as its citizens. The image promulgated is of wealthy people sitting in gated communities and behaving like Marie Antoinette- telling the desperately poor to simply eat cake. But the wealthy in our society have paid their dues in the form of taxes, and as often as not resent the enabling of dysfunction that these programs create. They therefore rarely do more. In the absence of Federal programs, I believe the sense of duty to society would quickly return for those of means. Similarly, without a guarantee of retirement, health care or income support, many on such programs would be forced to support themselves. In such a setting there would be, of necessity, an outpouring of effort. Jobs would suddenly be attractive that once were not. Responsibility would be in greater vogue if people became personally responsible for what they did. As Herbert Spencer said, 'the ultimate result of shielding men from their folly is to fill the world with fools'.

So many of the jobs at which Americans have sneered have gone overseas or have been taken by immigrants legal and illegal. While making the government responsible for the poor we have given a free pass to our government about protecting our borders and our money. It would make it much easier to get the government out of the business of providing personal subsidies if we enacted protectionist legislation like Europe's for our workers and products, and if we truly closed our borders. More jobs would be available, and they would have appeal to those suddenly unable to collect public money for doing nothing. It would also be desirable to end the Minimum Wage, as it artificially increases the value of some types of work.

It is also important to remember that 15%, not 7.65%, of income goes to Social Security. Half is paid by the employer. That much money would be freed to provide for those in need by individuals and other organizations. Medicare collects another 1.45% from the individual and the same from the employer. A total of nearly 18% of wages goes to these programs. Does anyone seriously believe we could not do as well or better with that money ourselves? Local use would avoid all the mechanisms of an intrusive and defining Federal government. Local use would go where it is needed, rather than to certain ages, races, incomes, etc.

I do not believe the concentration of people in urban areas is insurmountable. Many of those dependent on Federal programs would suddenly find it profitable to work within society rather than do nothing, even if the pay were not good. This is not exploitation; it is the finding of a paying job for those who need it. It is not society's fault or responsibility if the individual does not have greater skills. Perhaps there would be a greater interest in acquiring those skills if the individual were responsible for the outcome.

We have created the odd situation where we fear to end the very system that encourages disconnection from society by the wealthy and dependency by the poor. We perpetuate the very conditions we deplore, perhaps in fear we will be unequal to the task of providing care for so many. Society itself has always provided of itself for the poor and injured. The aberration is our current system, not the idea of returning to a locally based one. Government is not society, and filtering the efforts and values of individuals through a central bureaucratic system is not kindness, is not functional and is not representative. It is simply socialism. We fell for it from Wilson, from Roosevelt and from Johnson. We must move away from it and restore the duties of society and the individual to themselves.