Did they earn it?


Public charity vs. private charity
In an earlier post on illegal immigration, I mentioned that you couldn't really deal with the immigration problem without dealing with the things that attract illegals to the country in the first place.

Just so there is no misunderstanding, my problem is not with immigration. My problem is with people who break the law to be here and who draw benefits without being citizens. That brings us to the real issue, at least in my mind. Taxpayer funded benefits.

Obviously the problem with benefits goes far beyond the illegal immigrants. And that is what I want to talk about here.

The usual reasoning is that because a capitalist system is inherently unfair, some people should pay so that others can benefit.

Understand, any distinction between "rich," "poor," and "middle-class" is purely arbitrary. If you decide that anyone who makes less than say $20K a year is poor, that doesn't allow for regional differences. The cost of living in San Francisco is higher than Little Rock, Arkansas. And that doesn't even allow for the vast differences in a single city. Manhattan's Upper West Side is pricier than the Bronx.

So if the cost of living isn't the same, that means that $20K will go further in some places than others. That is one truth that will prevent a distinction based solely on income from having any practical meaning.

Problem number two, there are no cost controls in government. Just to collect and redistribute money, people have to be paid. At a minimum, there are tax collectors, the decision makers who decide how much to take and how much to pay, the people distributing the money and benefits, and the people receiving the benefits.

With all those hands in my pocket, it is amazing either that my hands or my money fit.

Problem number three is closely related to the second problem. The money decisions are made not based on need, capacity, or fairness, but to pander votes. Either it's to satisfy a constituency directly, or to ease some feeling of guilt that some groups feel.

The same process that set $20K as a limit could just as easily set $100K as "poor." Or $1K.

Problem number four is judging the character of the recipients. Frankly, I don't give money to panhandlers on the street. Yes there might be a genuine need, but I have no way of judging that. I've lost track of how many people have hit me up for gas money or money to buy their kids "something they need." Often I see these same people later making very unwise purchases. If you claim your kids need food, then you really have no business buying video games.

Problem number five is that government benefits are soon seen as a "right" and it encourages dependency.

Just in case you think I am blowing smoke, you might want to read this.

"In our generosity we have created a system of hand-outs, a second rate set of social services which damages and demeans it's recipients, and destroys any semblence of human dignity that they have managed to retain through their adversity. In the long run, welfare payments solve nothing, for the giver or the receiver; free Americans deserve the chance to be fully self-supporting."
— Robert Kennedy

See? Take the free market and individual choice out of the equation, and we remove most of the hope as well. That also removes most of the ways to make it better tomorrow.

Yes, there are genuine people out there that need help. But Americans are a tremendously generous people, given a choice we share what we have. Take it from us without asking, and we will resent you and the people you give it to.

— NeoWayland

Posted: Mon - May 30, 2005 at 04:54 AM  Tag


 ◊  ◊   ◊  ◊ 

Random selections from NeoWayland's library


Pagan Vigil "Because LIBERTY demands more than just black or white"
© 2005 - 2009 All Rights Reserved