Well said in my opinion. However, this was given in light of the idea of the role of welfare with respect to the responsibility of each individual and the responsibilities of government. I still have not seen a good argument relating to the necessity for government to be the source of so many welfare program through the taxation of its citizens? Why is government welfare the first line of defense for so many? And why do so many push for government to be the solution.
I came up with a metaphor that I hope describes the role of the welfare system of the United States. Government welfare is like cooking in an easy bake oven. Sure the job might eventually get done, but you might die of hunger in the meantime. For those of you that don't know what an easy bake oven is, it was a toy baking product used primarily by children as an introduction to baking that used the heat from an incandescent light bulb to cook brownie batter. It took hours to cook a small little square of brownie batter than would otherwise take 20 minutes in a conventional oven.
This metaphor speaks to inefficiency, to poor use of resources, and to the time it takes for government to operate. If we care about the poor and the needy then we should also want to see the system that can provide real help when needed is as efficient as possible - government has so far shown to be incapable of providing such a service or at an acceptable level of efficiency. Hence, the easy bake oven analogy:
To extend the metaphor, isn't the difference between welfare and no welfare like the difference between baking in an Easy-Bake Oven and not baking at all? (It's not as though people are using the government's Easy Bake instead of their Viking range.) Also, to extend it even further, the intent was to at least provide a toaster oven but due to opposition to the concept of government helping the poor, the budget was cut so that we can only afford an Easy Bake. But let's not get hung up on the metaphor.
ReplyDeleteIt would seem the first order of business, were we to look at this issue, is to distinguish between a service and a necessity. A service is something I can choose to have or not, but if I choose not to avail myself of the service or can't afford the service, nothing terrible will happen. A necessity however, is something that I cannot do without because its absence will cause physical harm to myself or others and possibly even death. Would you agree? (If not, let's see if we can agree on a definition.)
If in fact something is a necessity, then it goes without saying that a moral person would not condone a situation in which others were denied this necessity or were unable to obtain it, assuming it were in his power to do something about it.
In the case of welfare, there are options. First, we could determine whether there are systemic problems in the economy that create poverty or exacerbate it and work to solve them. Second, we could look at alternative ways to insure that no American goes hungry or homeless unless they are making a conscious choice to do so. Regardless of what method we prefer, we would evaluate all on a cost-benefit basis. - How can we best provide these necessities to all who are unable to obtain them for the lowest cost?
First off is to make sure that welfare is not administered by the Federal Government. That is probably the most important step. States and local governments have latitude to do all kinds of things that the federal government is supposed to be restrained from doing, ala the Bill of Rights.
ReplyDeleteWhy is that the first step? Why is it more important to determine what cannot be the solution before we define the problem? Isn't that backwards?
ReplyDeleteNot a chance. Governments tend to want to use "crisis" to centralize power. As long as we can keep the majority of power in this country away from DC, we will be FAR better off.
ReplyDeleteThe second step is then for people to decide at the State level what policy for welfare will be. Some states can have a top down model with the State handling nearly all of the affairs. Others can have counties adminster it, but have it funded by the State. Others can have it where the State does not fund it at all and it is done by counties and local municipalities. Other States can give money to organizations that are charitable. Still others can decide to keep charity completely within the realm of the private sector.
This way the States can decide for themselves what works best for each one of them. We will have 50 different laboratories to discover what models are most effective. We will also keep the power from coalescing into DC like it really wants to.
President Cleveland said referring to welfare and taxation at the national level: "Though the people support the government, the government should not support the people."
Our government should focus on warmaking powers and diplomatic enterprise, public infrastructure, law enforcement, patent protection, money, weights and measures and the like.
It is not here to feed the hungry and clothe the naked and educate the ignorant. Those vital endeavors belong to States and the people through their own volunatry associations. In other words, they are TOO IMPORTANT to be put into federal hands.
Too important? Then the primary concern should be that the hungry are fed, the naked are clothed and the ignorant are educated, not the methods used. I can understand the political viewpoint, what I have trouble with are the alternatives.
ReplyDeleteAs you may have noticed, most states are bankrupt or close to it, so it's unlikely they would be able to address these issues even if there was a consensus that they should. Of course, if you are suggesting substantial increases in state taxes to support welfare programs, then I'm all ears.
Not a chance in increasing taxes. The primary concern for charity lies with individuals giving voluntarily.It does not lie primarily with governments. To the extent that people desire to have government in the United States engage in charity, they can enact such programs. Those programs may exist at the local level, then county and finally State.
ReplyDeleteThe federal government is supposed to be chained away from these types of activities.
It really doesnt matter if there is a loss in efficiency in program delivery as a result. There may very well be (I would disagree), but lets say that there would be for the sake of discussion. We would take that loss as a price in our nation for keeping vast amounts of power decentralized from one location.
And that is the way freedom in the United States is supposed to be. Even the bill f rights addresses this in the 9th and 10th amendments.
We as people have a duty to engage in charity before our God. How we do it is through freedom of association. To the extent that people want to legislate it, our Constitution provides that latitude to societies here, but it is not for one state to force its charity approach onto another. (this is the way things are inteded, not the way they are currently, obviously.)
Charity is too important to be put into federal hands. I believe it is too important for most government hands, as I personally have seent he most effective aid to the needy come from the private side, but as a Federalist I am not going to force my ideal on others in their States and local governments. But that works in reciprocal too.
Dual Federalism is the key. Charity is not the primary concern of the national government, other than dire exigency where no other entity is capable of assistance such as large scalenatural disaster or rebuilding an area devastated by war or disease.
There are many needful things in a civilized society that the national govenment should NOT provide. There is a need for more government than is found there, but States can determine within themselves how much that will be and how it will be structured.
This is one do the most core of American precepts, and much of our woes come from abandoning it since the time of Woodrow Wilson, hateful racist progressive that he was.
We have a duty to serve our fellow man, but people need to confidently engage in philanthropy to the best of their own personal ability as they understand best how to, as their finances allow for without affecting their own financial growth as well.
No matter how much is done, the poor will alwys be among us. That is a fact of life. If the government runs everything at one level (totalitarianism) we will ALL be poor. That is why this can be best done in no other way.
The need to engage in charity does not trump the imperative to preserve freedom of choice for States and people.
So your attitude is screw the poor, they deserve their fate? If those who have means feel like giving to charity and the charity can feed a few token people then that meets your Christian obligation to the poor?
ReplyDeleteYou are entitled to your political views, but you are also responsible for the inevitable result of those views.
Such pessimism Charles. Where's your faith in the goodness of people? You know where those Salvation Army bell ringers gross the greatest amount of money? In the South! Some backwoods small town in Georgia was the highest grossing Wal-mart bell ringer last year. You know where they grossed the least? It was a tie between San Francisco and Tribeca, NY. I don't want to go into the political implications of that, other than to point out that a backwoods town in Georgia is guaranteed to have a lower salary average than Tribeca or San Francisco. -GWH-
ReplyDeleteI'm sure that small town Georgia is a better place to ring Salvation Army bells than San Francisco, but that is hardly the point.
ReplyDeleteWhen you have an economy spiraling down, with hundreds of thousands of good paying jobs gone, and 3-4 million homes being foreclosed on every year, donations to red kettles or United Way simply aren't adequate to deal with the situation. We are faced with a decision between our moral values and our political opinions. Apparently the Spirit of the Law crowd stick with their political preferences and if the charities just aren't up to the task, then they can tell that family living in their car and dumpster diving for food that they should be thankful they are left with their personal agency intact.
http://www.ldsphilanthropies.org/humanitarian-services/
ReplyDelete-GWH-
Charles if you want to have government run welfare, you can push for it in Ithica, Tompkins County and New York State. Your right to advocate for that is protected by the 1st, 9th and 10th Amendments found in the Bill of Rights.
ReplyDeleteYou are even free to advocate for however you desire to see it structured. The State can pay for it all and provide all the service as well in a one size fits all system. The State could pay for it but leave it to counties to administer as they see fit. Pehaps some would dole it out to cities to administer, some counties may do it themselves. Perhaps your State may pay a part, with cities and counties paying shares into the State system? Perhaps your State will mandate it upon lcoal govenments but not pay for it at all themsleves?
Your State - Your choice how that is done. It is not for me in the Puget Sound area of WA State or another in Idaho or Maine or North Carloina to tell NY State how to do it. That is your societal model to form, and the national govt ought to just stay clear out of its path.
But that goes both ways. If we have a model in my State you dont like, it is not for you to fix.
One more thing - Charles did you really say "your attitude is screw the poor"? Really? I mean for heavens sake, please dialogue like an adult here. Screw the poor? Screw the poor? That is such a juvenile response. Not to mention it doesnt even begin to address the issues raised in discussion here - it is just ad hominem stuff.
I dont care (well I do to a point but it is a figure of speech) what you want to set up in your State and local governments regarding welfare. The key is to reciprocate and not try to make the programs uniform across the nation by the national government.
This goes right to the heart of what blood was spilled in the revolutionary war with England over. We do not need as ares to all be controlled by one central government in all needful things. Pyramids must get progressively smaller at each rising level if they are to maintain a shape that is able to handle the stresses that time, weather and gravity will bring. Otherwise it is not stable and will eventually topple.
I don't really see any response from you Pahoran, other than to be adamant that government should not, must not do anything to help poor people. What I don't see is any empathy for the plight of poor people, any recognition that we have more people in poverty than any other Western industrial power. You are clear that you believe private charity is the only way to solve the problem that is acceptable to you.
ReplyDeleteSo what if private charity is inadequate to the task? What is your answer in that case? What if state and local governments are near bankruptcy already (as most are) and can't afford to do anything to help without massive tax increases? As far as I can tell from reading your posts, you don't have an answer other than to reiterate your position.
We have passed from a time when there is a political discussion to the point where there is a moral discussion. What is more important, caring for your neighbors in need or clinging to your political ideology? I guess I have the answer to that one.
Charles D. did you go to the website I linked earlier? I'm guessing you did not, but before you continue with this "discussion" please check the link. You will find the charitable workings of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints to which the members of this blog belong. I won't attempt to speak for everyone else on this matter, but I will say for myself that with the donations my wife and I contribute for charitable efforts through our church I have full confidence in my church's organization and ability to spend that money wisely. They are efficient and proven at handling disaster response as well as everyday charitable needs at home and abroad. Based on what you say on the blog here in regards to those in poverty, you feel the need for something to be done. I feel no different and neither does my wife. In fact I will say that my wife tends to be much more conscious of the needs of the impoverished due to her experiences in the Middle East and India. What's my point in sharing all of this? - We are very conscious of the needs of those in poverty as conservatives, and I believe that if true conservative principles were followed there would be no poverty because people would prosper through personal industry and for those who legitimately have no ability to provide for themselves either through physical or mental disadvantage, they would be taken care of by the charity of the people and through churches. Churches are the most efficient way to alleviate the suffering of the impoverished. They have an opportunity to know the people on an individual basis and lack the beauracracy to bog things down and tie up the money in administrative tasks. Therefore you get more bang for your buck in donating to a church than you would having your money taken and redistributed by a government. Now my next question I don't bring up to accuse, but aside from talk about poverty on this blog Charles, What do you do personally to alleviate the suffering of those in poverty? -GWH-
ReplyDeleteOh yeah one more thing. Back to the analogy of the original post, when you can get a Viking oven for less than an Easy Bake oven (in other words charity through churches (Viking), and so called charity a.k.a. government welfare (Easy Bake) - why would you still insist on taking the Easy Bake oven? -GWH-
ReplyDeleteCharles you said
ReplyDelete"I don't really see any response from you Pahoran, other than to be adamant that government should not, must not do anything to help poor people."
Charles you are incredibly frustrating to dialogue with because you ignore key points I raise and only see what you want to see in what I am writing. I defy you to show where I have said that government must not do anything for the people.
I have said the NATIONAL government must not do anything for the people. Hence the quote from President Grover Cleveland I shared. I have clearly stated 3 levels of government that are perfectly legit constitutionally for implementaing ALL the welfare policy your heart desires. I gave your point 3 levels, and all you hear is that I advocate that there must be NONE, simply because of the 4 levels I state that the top one ought not to get involved? This is what I am talking about here in your refusal to see key points in discussion. You see what you want in my dialogue and ignore main issues.
I have said that government programs in charity are legit at three of four levels and because of that Iwant to "screw the poor"?
Charles, why are you so hellbent upon consolidating functions at all levels of citizenry in government, and all the government into one level? That is so dangerous!!!!!! That is where totalitarianism comes in. It is the red carpet for it. So if you think that I am willing based upon the foregoing premise to have my ideology trump politics on this issue - Well you are DAMN right!!!!!
What makes you think that if his problem can't be solved with citizen non governmental civic life, plus 3 layers of governmental beauracy (municipal, county and State), that adding another government layer on top, and that being the highest level, the one where once power is there it is almost never going to be relinquished, that the problem will somehow be magically solved?
Why your clinging to precepts that we splled owr own and British blood to get away from in a previous era? Dont yoyu see irony for your stance in an organization called DSA that your stance on this actually served to weaken democracy at all levels under the central government?
Charles is using (again) his argument de jour, "If the government isn't being charitable, then no one can be." I donated salad to a feed the homeless organization in Salt Lake this last week. It was not taxed out of me, I enjoyed being able to share my "widows mite" with those even less situated financially. Had that been taxed out of me, part of that salad would have gone to the bureaucracy that formed the organization, forms needed to do a tax deduction.... blah blah blah, you get the idea. Why can't I just give food to those in need, my neighbor, or anyone who needs it? Why is government charity superior? Because it certainly isn't more efficient.
ReplyDeleteOne last time I'll try to explain. I'm seeing lots of talk here about who shouldn't feed the hungry, tend to the sick, house the homeless, etc. - mainly government, especially the federal government. I'm seeing that no one is really promoting the idea that the state or local government get involved either. The only acceptable way to provide anything to the poor is through private charity - giving a salad to a homeless shelter, donating to your religion's charity arm, or giving your neighbor a handout directly. What I don't see here is a real concern for the plight of our neighbors who are hungry, homeless or without access to decent health care. The main concern is that you are not "forced" to help them, or that you don't have to give up any shred of your precious individual freedom in order to insure that your neighbor doesn't starve or die.
ReplyDeleteI am not making the case that government charity is superior, but that private charity is inadequate. It is a matter of quantity not quality. With the economy in its current state, there are thousands more people needing help and thousands fewer who can afford to donate to charities. Rather than address this issue, the three of you are reiterating your political position. I have to conclude that if charitable agencies aren't able to cope with the needs of the poor, then you have no Plan B.
Two things, You need to re-read Pahoran's comments. He said that state, county, and civic governments are the better method, if the government is going to be involved. Yes, we are clearly anti-federal government in charitable efforts - mainly because that is unconstitutional.
ReplyDeleteSecond, I am not sure why you feel private charity is incapable or inadequate. Why use a plan B if plan is better? You seem to be pushing for a plan B instead of shooting for a plan A.
OK James. I'm sure if we just let charities do the job everyone will be OK in spite of the unemployment, foreclosures, lack of health insurance and everything.
ReplyDeleteYou keep your pessimistic attitude towards people, and I will trust in the nature of human beings. Remember 9-11? Do you remember the power of this nation when we all chose to help and be with one another? I think the worst enemy to charity is to raise a generation of people who think that it is the job of the government to take care of people - pay your taxes and leave it to someone else. How is that making the world a better place to push such humanitarian concerns on to the government.
ReplyDeleteAgain Charles, no one here is advocated the abolishment of all government welfare. So please park that argument before you look really in capable of reading simple English. Never once have we said that. We are not for the expansion of the system that is currently leaving many in section 8 housing, using food stamps for drugs, and health care for sex change operations. There is nothing charitable about such programs. These programs are seriously broken at best. These are not worth fixing. Shift the issue to a more local control so that the needs of the communities are being taken care of by those who know their needs the best.
You can't tell me that anyone sitting in their offices in Washington DC knows how to run a soup kitchen in Nevada. That is poor management, and it lacks in charitable results.
Charles please drop your affiliation with a political entity that uses the word "democratic" in its name because you dont agree with democracy, at least not on any level other than one central national government.
ReplyDeleteYou advocate despotic authoritarianism. I think people who advocate this do so because they know they cant control their own life and thus have a mindset that nobody else can either. Becasue of this, you think that we all must be ruled by a central strong hand that will manage everything in life that we all cant for ourselves.
Pahoran
I noticed you referred to James donation as “a salad”. You make it seem like he donated a single bag, the kind obtained at the supermarket. If I know James well enough he donated a box or crate if not a whole pallet worth of salad. This is nothing to balk at.
ReplyDeleteFrom my own personal experience volunteering time in a food bank in a Seattle neighborhood in years past, I know what a great gift James gave. Fresh food, whether is be fruit, vegetables or meat is usually the most difficult thing for them to receive in donations and the most expensive to purchase. They usually rely heavily on breadstuffs, beans, lentils and starches as well as canned items. The fresh stuff is a precious commodity and is so needed in the diets of those on the receiving end.
Another thing Charles, I have already shown on this blog the empirical studies that people of our philosophy of voluntary giving are far more generous with charity than are people of your philosophy of forced programs driven by taxation, so that if more people understood and applied our philosophy, there would be even more personal giving with money formerly forced out of the wallet by taxation to fund less effective ways to attempting to provide the same thing.
When it comes to how people help their fellow man I am “pro-choice” on the issue. You seem to be “pro-control”.
Pahoran
Pahoran, I also assume James' gift was quite generous and I had nothing negative to say about the charitableness of conservatives, Mormons or anyone else. That was not my point and I made that quite clear.
ReplyDeleteAlso, despotic authoritarianism is the sort of philosophy that prevents the people from exercising their democratic power to effect the changes in government they desire. Democracy says that the government's just powers derive from the consent of the governed and if the governed want to expand the role of government to help the poor, then they can do it. To argue otherwise is to obstruct democracy in the name of ideology.
I am getting very tired of explaining that its not about what method of providing help to people you prefer, its about whether the method works and can cope with the enormous expansion of poverty caused by conservative economic policy.
First off I disagree with your premise about the expansion of poverty caused by conservative economic policy.
ReplyDeleteYour philosophy IS despotic and authoritarian and I will show you why. I agree with all you said about democrcy being the consent of the governed and people can vote to expand it to help the poor.
When we talk about "government" in the USA, we are referring to one of 4 primarylevels. We usally need to specify which one we are talking about: Municipal, County, State, National.
I agree with your point about the right of people to expand government into welfare roles if the people vote for it.
Here is where you train goes off the tracks:
1.
I agree with you and will grant 3 of the 4 levels of government to this. 75% of the levels I agree completely about the right to vote government programs in if thatis what people want.
You claim this is not enough. You think I only agree with you if I support ALL levels being able to do this.
Bear in mind the level you are so ardent in having welfare programs at, the top one, is the level where most people will have the least amount of influence as a single person, since it has to represent everyone in the country. That means this level has the least amount of direct participatory democratic process for the most amount of people.
2.
You may then claim that the 3 levels of government under the top level are inadequate or insufficient and underfunded.
This may only be true to the extent that too much of the current taxation is going to the wrong level of government. If we eliminate programs at the top level that the lower levels are supposed to be doing, and indeed did in times before the top level took over,then we can have the tax revenue flow to those lower levels in like manner.
This will serve to empower States and give them the funding that is currently all sucked up by the top level.
3.
Unless I am for concentrating most of the tax money and program in the top level where the decisions are made by the least amount of direct democratic process and where the decisions are farthest removed from the sources of need, you then say I want to "screw the poor" and only concern myself with how to not help people.
Why is seperation of powers both vertically and horizontally so important? This is such a core American doctrinal precept. It is a precept that has been borne from painful experience of seeing kingdoms, empires and even republics rise and fall, and trying to build firewalls against the common denominators found in these arms of civilization shortlybefore their downfall.
Too much power concentrated in the hands of a central few who manage the affairs of everything in life from the top down is one of those key denominators.
The road to hell is paved with good intentions. Welfare is like many things that can be used as a means to centralize power into the hands of a few who although elected, are so unapproachable to any ordinary single person, greater than would be had at smaller denominations or levels of that democratic process. This canbe used as a ruse for power. After all, you arent against helping people are you? Dont you want to help people? Just let us standardise everything and consolidate these rights unto ourselves, and we will make it more efficient. We would never abuse that power though.
I dont believe the lies wrapped in milk chocolate.
I certainly don't believe that moving everything to the federal level is a panacea or is necessarily preferable to making decisions at a lower level of government, but as you point out, the money is at the federal level and to a great extent the power to levy taxes is at that level.
ReplyDeleteIf it were politically feasible to move substantial taxation and spending out of the federal government, we would then thrust the states into a competition even more damaging than the present situation. States that chose to raise and spend money to provide high quality education, health care, law enforcement, infrastructure and a social safety net would find themselves losing out in the competition for new businesses and investment. What we would have, even more than we have now, is a race to the bottom.
Probably the best approach was one initiated by the Nixon Administration and quashed by Reagan - revenue sharing. In this approach, the federal government with its superior revenue generation capability simply handed states and localities money with few strings attached. Then these more responsive and accountable levels of government had the money they needed to provide the programs their citizens wanted.
It is politically feasable to move substantial amounts of current taxation from the federal level back to where it belongs. And no it is not some race to the bottom. What a negative way to look at things Charles. You say we would have the race to the bottom even more than we have now, yet the federal govt is the one that has stolen taxing power from the lower levels to the largest degree already. So that undercuts your argument.
ReplyDeleteJust because there are needs doesnt mean that the top level should fix em. If you were a president of a large organization and ran your affairs that way, your organization would tumble under the weight. That would be the quickest way to ruin it.
Charles we must always remember that the states created the federal government, not the other way around.
You still have not answered the importance of seperation of pwers both vertically and horizontally. Or is that not really a big deal to you?
Charles, do you agree or disagree with this: The federal government should not be large enough or funded enough to be able to provide all things we need from a government. Not even most things.
ReplyDeleteAgree or disgaree: The more local a function of government, the greater amount of democratic influence the average citizen can have with it.
A key of making democracywork is having as many functions as possible at the lowest level.
Agree or Disagree: The national government is highly inefficient with most of its programs. Other levels of government and NGO's tend to do much better. There are exceptions: CA and NY for example.
Agree or Disagree: Though we should always enage in philanthropy, it should not be compulsory by the arm of law.
Agree or Disagree: Empirical studies have shown that fiscal conservatives are more generous in helping the poor than are fiscal liberals, both in terms of amount given and as a percentage of income.
Pahoran, if you think the members of Congress are going to vote to make substantial cuts in the government's taxing power or its spending I have a bridge here in New York to sell you.
ReplyDeleteOn your questions:
1) The federal government should be large enough and funded enough to provide what the citizens want the government to provide and are willing to pay for.
2) Local governments are more democratic than governments at a higher level but that doesn't mean they are the most effective at all the tasks we want government to perform. For one thing, there is a lot of duplication of back office services that costs a lot of money but doesn't provide any benefit to taxpayers.
3) All levels of government are inefficient when a significant number of the politicians who run them don't believe in government and undermine its functions. There is no reason why the federal government has to be any more inefficient than a large private company.
4) I agree that philanthropy should be encouraged but not compulsory, however, not all problems can be solved by philanthropy.
5) I have no reason to dispute that conservatives (probably due to stronger religious affiliations and cultural reasons) are more generous in private charity. Whether the charities they fund are actually helping the poor is another matter.
The federal government should be able to pay for things the people wnt it to pay for, but there is a caveat. It must first be constitutional.
ReplyDeleteWheras the US constitution leaves wide open what all the lower levels of government and society CAN do, it tells the national government specifically the ONLY thing sit can do.
This means that if the people want welfare programs at the national level, it needs to be ENUMERATED there.
Why do you suppose that provision is crucial to keeping power from centralizing, no matter how tempting the cause?
What do you suppose the founders knew from the lessons of human history that made this principle so imperative?
So your position is that if no one in the late 18th century thought to explicitly assign a responsibility to the national government, it is forbidden from doing it? That makes the Constitution into a prison for future generations instead of an instrument to carry out the lofty goals of the Preamble.
ReplyDeleteThe Constitution represented the best effort of a group of very able white men to reach a compromise that would keep all 13 colonies united. The conditions that required that compromise no longer exist and the founders were certainly not able to foresee the future. They did understand that the chief threats to the republic were a too-powerful executive, particularly with a standing army, and the temptation to become an empire. They obviously changed the minds within a few years as the nation evolved.
There you go again Charles, thinking that if the Federal Government can't do it that must mean no one can. The constitution presents liberties and freedoms that are indeed lofty, but it also explicitly restricted the size and powers of the federal government. Perhaps, just maybe, they felt that certain freedoms were possible but only possible by restricting the size and scope of the federal government.
ReplyDeletePlus, what you are proposing is completely off topic. The idea here is that the Federal Government has taken many powers unto itself. The task of welfare is a necessary one, but it is not best done by the federal government. You say that we the people changed that since the beginning of the country, but the constitution is principally laid out and therefore timeless if followed appropriately.
I don't remember voting, or anyone voting, for Social Security, national welfare programs, or for many of the federal things that are in place now. Did the people vote that in? Where was the voice of the people on any national issue? When was the last time you voted for anything federally speaking other than for a person? When was the last time that you, Charles D, made a vote that had national policy relevancy, and not just for a person?
You say you want a voice for the people, but as far as I see, and as Pahoran has pointed out, the larger the body of people, the quieter your voice becomes. You expect your voice to gain strength with a strong federal government, but I see that we the people have very little voice in the federal government as it runs today. Why? Because it is too big and too far detached from the people to be making decisions on a local level.
How is this relevant to welfare? Let me give you another analogy: Having the federal government do welfare programs is like asking Andre the Giant to knit a scarf. It is too big to do anything that requires such attention to detail as is someone's health care, or welfare. With such a local need, the attention to one citizen does not require the efforts of a huge national government. In the end, the more they try, the more they will fail and look ridiculous trying.
So how is it the Constitution a prison for the nation when it secures for the nation the blessings of being able to carry out the lofty goals of the preamble codifying restrictions on that which was observed to be the downfall of civilizations , one after another, that is, too much centralized power?
ReplyDeleteHow is it a prison when it allows for 3 levels of unfettered government, except for the specific items prohibited to them by the document? The approach is the opposite for the top level which is prohibited everything but what is enumerated.
This is one of the most fundamental principles laid out in the document, and you are challenging it.
Charles, it sounds to me like if you lived back in the late 1700's, you would have been a loyalist to the crown. The monarchy had a central government that held all power, and only delegated some to lower levels as it saw fit.
For its time it had extensive social programs, such as a pension system, systematic building of poorhouses and a loose national education system for youth. They had these way in advance of other nations except France.
I doubt you would have supported a cause that sought to form a nation where these things were restricted to States and the People under the articles of Confederation, as was the case.
Tell me I am wrong in my view, but it would be consistent with your view today.
It seems to be that the position taken here is that welfare must not be a federal responsibility. What I don't see is a prioritization of the needs of the poor over political ideology.
ReplyDeleteThe Constitution you so ardently defend established a representative form of government, not a direct democracy so none of us vote on individual federal spending or tax bills and, except in initiative and referendum states, we don't vote on state spending or taxes directly either. In fact, even our local government representatives decide spending priorities and tax levels and only sometimes put them to a vote.
The size argument is also a bit disingenuous. We have huge multinational corporations that are quite effective at performing all sorts of tasks, so claiming that the federal government is too big to administer a welfare program just doesn't make sense. If we want more voice in the federal government to make it more responsive to the people, that can be accomplished. We simply need to reform the electoral process - instant run-off voting, government financing of elections, easy voter registration, and transparent vote counting; and then abolish the Senate and Electoral College and increase the size of the House to 570.
Again we have the all or nothing argument about the Constitution. It's the same kind of mentality that says that if we don't believe in a 6-day literal creation story we must think the entire Bible is erroneous. I would not have been a monarchist, but I believe the Constitution didn't go far enough. The founders had to compromise with the evil institution of slavery or the infant nation would have been too small to endure. That's why they gave so much authority to the states, or more precisely to state governments dominated by the propertied classes. Those conditions no longer exist and we should not continue to govern ourselves as if they did.
When you say that wheat you read here is a prioritization of political ideaology over the need of the poor when it comes to national government , you are stating the obvious. That is EXACTLY the point. This is the triumph of principle over helping the poor at the national level. You have three other levels of government for that if you wish, plus everything voluntarily done by citizens through fredom of assiciation.
ReplyDeleteThis prioritization is exactly the point. When it comes to charity at the national level - let it go, as it is unconstitutional. This level of government is not FOR helping the poor.
And please dont try to use the "general welfare" clause. That is not a vague to term to justify whatever people want. That was already delineated in the Federalist Papers.