Look Ma, No Hands

In 1967 I was inducted into the Air Force. The base to which I was to report was in Texas, so in August of that year we drove west. We had a Checker station wagon which had a vast capacity, and we set up a playpen in the rear. Our oldest (then our only) son rode, and played, in the playpen during our ride. We now know that we were abusing him and he should have been in a certified car seat for eight-month-olds. Nor did he have any form of seat belt. Perhaps he would have enjoyed the ride less – we would have – but he would have been safer.

I taught the kids to ride bicycles also. There were three altogether. And all succeeded, with the usual falls and scrapes that go with the territory. No helmets or other forms of protection apart from the clothes they were wearing. And driving. That also went reasonably well, although they took no separate defensive driving course and there was no seat mandatory wearing of belts at the time – at least not when I started with the oldest (and even later, when they were new, they were viewed more as an inconvenience than a help). Just practice. And no accidents. They all passed their driving tests and lived to tell the story. (All three are alive and well with families of their own.)

So why am I wasting your time with these unexciting reminiscences? Because they were unexciting. None of my practices would be acceptable at present, but they all went smoothly then. We didn't know better. Perhaps I'd do things differently now but that's only in part because of the risks of the procedures, and in part because of the public reaction to them, and because of the more recent laws. I'm inclined to believe that we're overdoing what we view as our mandate to take care of everyone.

The Constitution calls for us to “promote the general Welfare,” but that directive comes right after we're instructed to “provide for the common defence [sic].” The same words appear in Article 1, Section 8, with common Defense [sic – here the noun is capitalized] again linked to general Welfare. Nonetheless, it's hard to ignore the fact that the government's largess is a good way to garner votes. So give-aways of benefits are likely to continue. Leaving that issue aside, however, it's hard to understand the linkage between the “general Welfare” and government mandates. Our officials seem to be committed to protecting us – whether we want it or not. And while they may be justified in taking steps that limit our ability to harm our fellows – they may protect others – it's difficult to interpret the constitutional mandate as authorizing Congress – or anyone else – to protect us from ourselves.

I don't mean to suggest that we should not take reasonable steps to do so, and to protect our children as well from harm, but we should do it. (We're all responsible for every one – but our first responsibility is to ourselves and our families. Others may have a responsibility to us, but before we look to them we should consider our own responsibility.) And we should do it because of the wisdom of doing so, just as we get insurance for those situations that warrant it. It's reasonable for there to be a requirement that we have liability insurance, so that we can pay for any damage to someone else's health or property that we cause – the protection of others – but if we are prepared to pay the costs for injury to ourselves, an argument can be made that we should not be forced to pay for that insurance – nor health insurance in general.

Societies were formed to provide protection for individuals otherwise at the mercy of others. For that we are willing to sacrifice some of our liberty. But neither our sacrifice of liberty nor the guarantee of safety is absolute. We undertake major construction projects knowing that the loss of life is inevitable in their execution; we build motor vehicles although we are aware that motor vehicle deaths will ensue; we regulate, but we do not forbid, the use of toxic drinks, foods, and drugs because of public demand for them – including some that were once illegal – and because of the revenue they generate. We're willing to take some risks in life – especially with the lives of others – when we consider the benefits to outweigh them.

But not all. The government has taken over the responsibility to care for us from the cradle to the grave. At our own expense. In addition to the money (of ours) that it distributes to those who are “needy,” it regulates those who provide services for us (eg OSHA makes sure they are safe) as well as those who provide products for us. To be sure, we benefit from such services – or at least some of them. It has also, notwithstanding the First Amendment, assumed responsibility for making sure we speak to everyone politely. We must not say what might be offensive to a member of a “minority” group (what the government doesn't proscribe, like “microaggressions,” will be forbidden by some other group), and any crime we might commit against them is a “hate crime.” No aspect of our lives is considered off-limits by regulators.

There are risk-takers among us (whom we often view as the “accident-prone”) and we will not change that, no matter how hard we try. It often results from the stage of frontal lobe development or associated problems. Or it may be linked to hormonal levels, or to psychological issues. It's hard to argue that it's society's responsibility to protect us from our own physiology or pathophysiology. Perhaps it is reasonable to modify the penalties we impose on those who commit crimes which we attribute to psychiatric causes (or to family or social situations) but most people believe that some punishment is justified. Whatever the cause, most people are responsible for their actions.

Similarly, people should be expected to take responsibility for their own actions, unless they impinge on the safety of others. The Constitution calls for us to protect ourselves from threats by other citizens or by other nations. We have police and a military, as well as firefighters and the like. And regulation of industry isn't unreasonable, since individuals can't really defend themselves against the large companies that set prices and control our actions – and sometimes cause danger to us. Unfortunately, however, first we have to stop letting those industries make the rules and author those regulations. Congress, getting its funds from lobbyists, is happy to let them do so. And they're the ones who make and sell the car seats, bike helmets, and the like that their servants, members of Congress, impose on us. That's not to suggest that much of what they sell isn't useful, but its obligatory nature is something that needs rethinking.

Adults should be treated as such – not just as children in need of governmental protection. And society should demonstrate an expectation that individuals take care of themselves and their families, and of others. Charity is laudatory, in fact it is everyone's responsibility. But it should be voluntary, not mandatory. Otherwise it's not charity. And it's not up to our government to protect and support everyone, especially industry, at our expense. If our representatives represented us, they would demonstrate an expectation – and require – that industry respond to our needs, rather than bribe private enterprise to care for us.

And, of course, Congress should not be paying us to vote for them. If they act in our interests, and allow us to do so as well, they'll have our support. If they restore our rights and our liberty to us, we'll reward them. If they don't, we'll know whom to blame.

The Devil Made Me Do It

One of the most memorable lines from “West Side Story” comes during the song “Gee, Officer Krupke.” Proudly declared by Riff a gang member, the words, in defense of his antisocial behavior, were “I'm depraved on account I'm deprived.” We're entertained by the wordplay and the concept it conveys, but we also laugh a little nervously, both because we know he believes what he's saying,ⁱ and because we're concerned about a society in which criminal behavior may be excused because of “mitigating” conditions.

One of the more frightening ideas, and one we know to be true, is that people become set in their ways early in life. And the “ways” are, in large part, ones they've learned from others. Over the years we've learned a lot about human behavior and the factors that influence it, recognizing that there are many we're powerless to control. One of the most important of the factors relates to the people around us and their views.

Another song sheds light on the problem. The words are by Oscar Hammerstein II, and they come from “South Pacific.” “You've got to be taught” points out the effectiveness of early education. “You've got to be taught before it's too late, before you are six or seven or eight.” And it is during this period that we poison our children, while at the same time warning them about playing with the “wrong” friends.

Riff, apparently, was conditioned both at home and in the schoolyard, and he continued to associate with those who would reinforce the dangerous ideas he had already learned. Having been taught the behavior he displays, he should not, in a modern country like ours, be held responsible for it – or at least the faulty upbringing and the lessons it fed him should be viewed as extenuating circumstances and excuse any punishment due him. At least that's what he believes. Certainly such a childhood is just as likely to cause deviations from civilized normsⁱⁱ as Twinkies.ⁱⁱⁱ

There are at least two bottom lines to this situation: one is that no one is responsible for anything he does. It's not his fault. There is always an outside influence like a person or a condition^iv of some sort that is the guilty party.^v It's certainly not him. And the second is that early childhood education is largely responsible for people's behavior later in life. The song from “South Pacific” tells us what we must be taught: “to hate all the people your relatives hate, you've got to be carefully taught.” Children taught to hate and fear^vi will hate and fear. And chances are good that they'll inculcate in their children the same biases and paranoia.

Without spending unwarranted time on how disdain for responsibility affects the children, a subject which I may address in a future post, there are a few suggestions I'd like to make which may, at least to a degree, mitigate the situation. Thus all include education.^vii Certainly there are other treatments which should be applied, but for the sake of this essay I want to limit my thoughts to the education.

Parents – or future parents – should be taught parenting skills. No such subject was taught in the “olden” days,^viii but in our modern urban society, these skills seem lacking in many of the people who, willingly or otherwise, become parents. It is likely that not too many will participate voluntarily, but this kind of education can be made a part of the package that includes the spectrum of “entitlements” proffered to those who require them, and can be a condition for the receipt of other aid.^ix Apart from parenting, adults should be taught a variety of other subjects which directly involve their own lives and those of their children. These may include nutrition, sex education, civics and money management. The level of the teaching should be tailored to the group involved.

Classes can be given in a variety of places – public buildings where benefits are distributed, social centers, schools offering adult education, and even prisons. It would be naїve to believe that all who are urged or forced to attend them will do so, or that all who attend will benefit from them, but to the degree that attention is paid to the material offered, there is likely to be some improvement in behavior and some help for the children of participants.

Similar material, adjusted for the age of the students, should become part of the curriculum of both public and private^x schools. Giving the classes in several grades will emphasize the importance of the material presented and allow for the elevation of the level of the education as the children get older.^xi Much of this material is already being presented but repackaging it in the form of family skills may make it more interesting to some of the students. And, as is true with all teaching, its repetition improves the likelihood of its retention.

Bad parents treat their children in a way that is likely to turn them into bad parents as well. It's the curse that keeps on cursing. The profits society can realize from children who are carefully taught the right lessons cannot be overstated. Whatever can be done to break the cycle will provide benefits and cost savings that are certain to exceed the costs incurred in the programs that yield them. Perhaps it will help both the deprived and the depraved.

Next episode: “The Great Debate” – It ain't what you say but the way that you say it.

 

 

 

 

 

I        And maybe we do too. We know for certain that he'll make use of the free pass he expects.

ii       Which is certainly not to suggest that something is proper because it is a societal norm.

iii      Actually Dan White didn't claim that the Twinkies and other sweets he ate made him murder George Moscone and Harvey Milk, but that his taste for them resulted from depression (indeed, they proved that he was depressed) and the depression lowered his responsibility for whatever he did.

iv      That includes issues as diverse as genetics, poverty, life experiences, and Twinkies.

v        I'll deal with that issue at a future date.

vi       A good example is the inclusion in textbooks supplied to Palestinian children by their hate-filled elders, a large body of anti-Israeli (and anti-semitic) propaganda which amplifies the malevolence they are taught elsewhere. In general, prejudice is learned at home, but school and teachers may influence it greatly – as may biased friends.

vii      Since I'm finessing the “guilt” issue.

viii     Nor did it seem necessary. Perhaps we ignored the issue, or perhaps people were more civil in a less advanced civilization.

ix       That is not to suggest that those who do not require welfare don't need better training in parenting skills – only that we have less leverage to involve them.

x        That may be one way to get through to those not requiring welfare payments.

xi       Age-appropriate videos could even be shown at Day Care Centers in order to give small children a head start.

Not My Fault

                                                                                                              

The punch line is: “None of us was driving Officer. We were all in the back seat.”

You had to be there. It was part of a joke by Peter Lind Hayes about a drunk old lady whose car was involved in an accident, and it was very funny at the time.ⁱ Nowadays it's not so funny. We'd blame someone else now, rather than talking about ourselves.

In fact, nowadays we always seem to be focused on someone else. Everything is hisⁱⁱ responsibility. If something goes wrong he either caused it or didn't prevent it. Nothing should be blamed on me, and if something goes wrong, it's always because of what someone else did or didn't do. Or, perhaps, what he should do. Certainly he's responsible for my well-being. If I have needs, he has to fill them.

According to the Wall Street Journal,ⁱⁱⁱ the Bloomberg administration had a program that “paid poor families for basic behaviors such as going to the doctor, attending school and doing well on tests. … adults are rewarded for working 30 hours a week … and parents still get paid for dentist visits and annual medical checkups.” Ideally such a program would make it adventageous for the poor to do the things that used to be considered intelligent and that would benefit those who engaged in them. Now, it seems, society considers it appropriate to bribe people to do what might be good for them. In all likelihood, if we don't do that they'll spite us by not taking care of themselves. Perhaps it's cheaper to bribe them than to pay the costs of remediation later on, but it provides an incentive to act irresponsibly. In any event, “the experiment was largely a flop.” It goes without saying (but I'll say it anyway) that in my day (stop yawning) the individual was considered responsible for his own welfare. Intelligent behavior was assumed.

I first noticed the problem in mid-career in medicine when I learned that it was the doctor's fault if a patient did not follow instructions or didn't show up for an appointment. It seemed strange^iv that the doctor would be guilty and held accountable if the patient didn't take his medicine, or if he didn't care enough to return when scheduled. Actually it shouldn't have surprised me. After all, it takes a village to raise^v a child. And it takes a village to support him and his family. And the village better do it.

The Bible tells us that we are responsible for each other. It urges us to give charity. In a way, that's how many of us view the situation, and the responsibility for dealing with it. All problems can be attributed to society, and society should correct them. That's the origin of social programs around the world. In the US we have Social Security, Medicare, Welfare, food stamps, homeless shelters, Head Start, and a host of other programs designed to support those who can't, or won't, make it on their own. The idea is basically one of universal insurance. We all pay the government and it supplies the services needed by those who are unable to provide for themselves.^vi And since we get govermental funding through a graduated income tax, that means that the rich pay for the poor. That's fair, isn't it?

Well, it certainly sounds fair.^vii Unfortunately for that to really happen we have to place the line between “rich” and “poor” fairly low.^viii Even much higher taxes on the “one percent,” or even the ten or twenty percent, will be inadequate to pay for all the programs we've taken on. Usually they are “feel-good” programs pushed by those who never inform the voters that they will pay for them. All they do is to inspire guilt in those whom they have chosen to be the insurers. It's good politics. They get votes from the guilt-ridden for their compassion, and from the poor for their support. From the perspective of both, the government has deep pockets and is responsible for the care of all our citizens.^ix Most forget, however, that we are the government, and we are the insurers of the welfare of our fellows.^x Ultimately, no one is responsible for his own well being. We are all responsible for that of others.

And none of us is responsible for anything that goes wrong. It, too, is someone else's fault. Another hoary joke is that if you fall, it isn't your doctor who tells you if something is wrong, it's your lawyer. And he^xi tells you whom you should sue. That way both you and he will get a payoff for whatever happened. Even if no one else caused your problem, there is likely to be someone who can be blamed. It's surely not your fault if something goes wrong. Someone has to pay. We're an extremely litigious society. The media are filled with advertising by lawyers who will try to get you money for anything that can be construed as blamable on someone else. Sadly, there is a refusal of the acceptance of any responsibility by individuals.

So there will be many who, whatever the demonstrated outcome of such efforts, will continue to encourage bribing people to act responsibly. Perhaps they'll favor subsidies for obeying the law. And general no-fault insurance for whatever people see as the inequities of life. After all, the government will pick up the tab.

Next episode: “The Trouble With Democracy” – “We have met the enemy and he is us.”

i       About a half century ago. Maybe more, but, as the saying goes, “Who's counting?”

ii          Or her.

iii       'Good Behavior' Still Pays Off, September 25, 2013.

iv        And unjustifiable.

v       Some prefer “rear,” but that's the cliché.

vi      After it pays for expenses and corruption, of course.

vii    Another name for this approach is “socialism.” The basic idea is a redistribution of wealth so everyone has the same amount. It is irrelevant why someone is rich and another is poor. Both deserve the same amount of resources. Take from the “rich” and give to the “poor.” We are all our brothers' (and sisters') keepers.

viii    By the way, who decides where to draw the line?

ix      And, for that matter, anyone in our territory – citizens or not. But at this time I won't pursue the issue of those here illegally.

x      There is no consciousness of the fact that those same individuals (all of us) underwrite it. When it's viewed simply as a government program, we ignore the bottom line that it comes from the taxes we pay. And it is the politicians, who aren't paying for it but are out for votes, who decide what is a problem requiring societal correction.

xi     Or she.

Foundations For Charity

                                                                                   

Let me return to the issue of tax money as the source of funding of governmental programs which many would consider to be charity. Many contend that the decision to give charity should be their own – not forced on them by zealous public officials.

As far as I'm concerned, there's a lot to be said for their contention.ⁱ On the other hand, however, it is difficult to justify a society that leaves the hungry to starve, the homeless to live on the street, the naked to remain unclothed, or the sick to suffer and die without treatment. In all candor, we cannot disregard the needy. There's a lot to be said for that position as well, so some “middle ground” must be found that will allow us to address the problems without penalizing taxpayers as much as we are doing now. But first we have to clarify what the problems are that we have to solve.

There are several questions that come to mind immediately:

1. There are poor and needy around the world. If our society is obligated to care for the needy, whom should we help?
2. What kind of help should we offer?
3. What is the level of help we should provide?
4. Who should decide the nature and extent of the assistance?
5. Who should be helped and to what level of aid?
6. Who should make these decisions?
7. What, if any, is the obligation to society of those helped?

If there is to be any equity in the continuation of an entitlement system supported by taxpayers, these questions must be answered. But there are other sources of funding and there are different kinds of aid that can be provided; and there are different requirements that can be imposed on the recipients. Let me give some examples to clarify these thoughts. Not all of these examples are of what most people consider entitlements,ⁱⁱ but the result is that certain individuals and groups are having their needs and wishesⁱⁱⁱ met at the expense of all taxpayers.

In terms of examples (and I'll suggest only one – or at most, two – for each category) there are, first of all, some constitutionally mandated functions of government, like defense and the payment of debts, that are all of our responsibility. But of those that fall into the category of “general Welfare,” as decided after the Constitution was written, there are certain needs that can be considered basic, and sometimes are life-saving. An example of that is food. To use a trite expression, we can't live without it. Second are the important, but not life-saving, needs of society, like education. What constitutes education, however, is not defined.^iv And third are the “niceties,” like art, that don't provide life but make it more pleasant. And all of these, at least to some degree, are provided by tax money.

But there are other ways to fund such projects, in large part related to those who require those services. Some examples of this are also in order. Certainly all taxpayers are obligated to share in the cost of defense.^v And the taxpayers responsible for these services pay both Federal (Army, Navy, etc.) and State (Militia, Police) taxes. Private support for such security is not anticipated, although commercial security services are sometimes chosen in addition, by some firms, and even by some individuals.

Of the needs that have been assumed following the writing of the Constitution, there is, currently, a mix of sources to provide funding. Local, State, and Federal governments help provide food for those needing it, but so do individuals, foundations, and other institutions, like charities and religious institutions. So, too, is there mixed support for “luxury” services, like museums and concert halls, however a larger percentage comes from private sources and less from the government.^vi There are many who believe that the cost of these luxuries should be entirely private, coming from “The Patrons of the Arts,” and from those who attend specific programs.^vii Their view is that those who seek these extravagances should be prepared to pay for them.^viii Others, however, believe that the arts are so important to society as a whole that the government is responsible for supporting it – and that includes non-commercial “public” broadcasting stations, and music and arts programs in the public schools.

Somewhere between the life and death needs, and the luxuries, are infrastructure and services that many, but not all, of our population needs or wants, but the needs vary very much from individual to individual. For example, everyone may wish carrots that are trucked in over our highways, but they may not drive or ever use the roads themselves. In addition, there are many like me who pay school taxes but never send their children to public schools; and there are those who pay “list price” for higher education with no assistance from scholarships or government subsidized loans. It is often difficult to determine why some citizens should pay the costs so that others can benefit; why they should give mandatory charity mediated by Congress and the IRS.

I'm conscious of the fact that I've intertwined various issues that are sometimes connected and sometimes not. Among them are taxes, entitlements, charity, programs, subsidies and the like. And I know that the consequences of a program may be other than what was intended. I also know that the different recipients of the benefits^ix have a variety of expectations.

Consequently there is no simple solution to the problem. And there is no single solution either. The different kinds of costs require different kinds of funding. And the last question raised above^x – regarding the responsibility of the recipients of society's charity – is an important one to consider as we work toward resolution of some of the inequities. I'll suggest some paths in the next essay^xi that may help lead us to an answer while lowering the amount we pay as taxpayers to provide the services we want.

Next episode: “You Pay For What You Get” – Or for what someone else gets.

i      Some of it can be found in the essay dated October 24, 2010: “Giving And Receiving.”

 

ii     If it's something you demand be there when you need it, either free or at a reduced price, it's an entitlement. It may be clean water, government inspection of food and drugs, public education, the GI Bill of Rights, or clean streets, but it's an entitlement – something to which you're entitled. Your expectation may be justified or not, and that judgment will be based on each giver's and recipient's point of view, but it's something you expect and something to which you feel entitled.

 

iii    See: com/2013/04/21/world/europe/danes-rethink-a-welfare-state-ample-to-a-fault.html?pagewanted=1&_r=0&ei=5043&partner=EXCITE

 

iv    Does it include classes no larger than 25 students each? How about football, debating team, and French Club? Should there be separate classes for “special” students? Or advanced classes for the gifted? If education is a basic human need that the government should support, what about features that add costs?

 

v      Perhaps better management is in order (no overpriced toilet seats for the Pentagon) but the function itself isn't in issue, nor is the question of funding.

 

vi     Foundations and other private sources are among the most important of the providers for educational institutions, museums, medical research, and concert halls and other music venues. Their contributions supply significant aid for their causes. And their contributions are voluntary. Indeed, whether they are individuals or institutions giving tens of millions of dollars or whether they are “working stiffs” who help out in their church's soup kitchen, voluntary donors play an important part in humanizing our mechanical society.

 

vii    On television it's called “pay per view.”

 

viii   As they do for a sports event.

 

ix     That includes rich corporations, industries, organizations, and individuals for whom special provisions are surreptitiously slipped into legislation designed to help others

 

x       Number 7.

 

xi      And, I hope, the last (though I'm not yet sure – I may need two more). I'm tiring of the subject, and there are others about which I'd like to write.

Buyer Prepare

                                                                                      

Every now and then I read in the papers of some outraged citizen withholding part of his income tax payment. It's usually his calculation of the amount that supports the Defense Department because he is opposed to war and the preparations for it. But it doesn't work that way. That's not the way we do business, and I take issue with his act.

Not so much because our tax systemⁱ is fairⁱⁱ and that it's appropriate to keep it as it is,ⁱⁱⁱ and include all government expenses in it,^iv but because defense is one of the very few things that the Constitution actually lists as a justification for taxation.^v

 

Section 8

1: The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States

With that in mind, it is hard to justify the citizen's actions.

It's harder, though to understand what is meant by the “general Welfare of the United States.” In view of the context, to “provide for the common Defence [sic] and general Welfare of the United States,” I've always assumed that it related to intelligence and police functions. Those would be activities affecting the general Welfare of the United States as it relates to defense. That would make it the responsibility of all taxpayers. There's no way to opt out of those expenses either.

Members of our three branches of government – legislative, executive, and judicial – have viewed the general Welfare to include anything they thought should be done, especially those actions that would bring them popularity. What they advocated might be “good things,” but it was not always clear that the government (ie the taxpayers) should fund them. Like the arts. They may make our lives “better,”^vi but not everyone likes them or can patronize them. Should everyone pay? And while no one would argue against the importance of education, in the 43 years I have been living in my house I've paid several hundred thousand dollars in school taxes even though none of my children ever used the public schools. The cost of their education was in addition to what the government charged me.

Other similar examples abound, from all levels of government, like all taxpayers supporting the building of roads even if they don't have cars; or the payment for public transportation by people who don't use it; or the subsidization of tobacco by those who abhor smoking;^vii or the “bailout” of a company that's “too big to fail;” or even garbage collection. Our needs as individuals, and as a society, are great, however it's not unreasonable to question who should pay.

But perhaps the most egregious example of taxpayer support for the “general Welfare,” at least as understood by Congress, is welfare itself. The entitlement system. The question is not whether we should feed the hungry, house the homeless, or treat the sick – of course we should^viii – but how should it be financed. The current system makes the “haves” pay for the “have-nots.” It's one that requires that those with resources pay for the needs of their fellow citizens. And by its graduated nature, it demands more of those who have more. It is, in reality, a redistribution of resources; it is a form of socialism, although its proponents see it as a matter of “fairness” and “equality.” So it works out that everyone has an obligation to pay for what used to be the responsibility of the individual and his family. We are the “village” that is not only raising the child, but supporting him throughout his life.

Similar considerations apply to other governmental programs, but I'll deal with entitlements, and if there is any merit in my suggestions, they can be applied to those others as well. Over the next few essays^ix I'll review the subject and offer some ideas about how to change it. Until then, watch whoever's hand is in your pocket or pocketbook.

Next episode: “Foundations For Charity” – Some basic considerations.

i       That's a generous description, but I'm a generous man.

ii     It isn't. And its long (I think at last count it was about 78,000 pages) and incomprehensible to boot.

iii    You've got to be kidding. Only an accountant or government official wouldn't want us to simplify it. In fact they'd gain by making it more complex.

iv     That's not my view at all. As you'll see presently.

v      See Article 1, Section 8.

vi     At least I think so. But that doesn't mean I always agree with the “experts” who decide what constitutes the art that should be supported.

vii   As well as the second-hand smoke and the cost to society of health-care for the treatment of diseases that the user brought upon himself.

viii   At least that's my opinion. Not everyone would agree.

ix     Three at most, but I'll try to do it in two.

I've Got It Coming

 

There are many different ways to compare conservatives and liberals. I used to believe that liberals were the ones with faith in human nature and a generally optimistic outlook. I used to believe that liberals were more idealistic than conservatives, but now I know that's not true. They're far more realistic.

I used to think that conservatives were rich thieves who viewed everyone else cynically. They were practical, not idealistic, and not contributing their fair share to an America that cared for its citizens. But now I know that, too, isn't true. Youth is optimistic and youth is liberal, and youth sees the two as being related. So I used to think what almost all youth, and many who were a lot older, thoughtⁱ – that America was a land of equality, and all that was necessary to obtain that equality was for the conservatives to get out of the way.

The idea wasn't new. The Founding Fathers had written, and the new nation had adopted, a Constitution that deemed promotion of “the general Welfare” and “the Blessings of Liberty” as important reasons for its existence.ⁱⁱ The expectation of national support for those incapable of caring for their own needs was justified, and was there from the beginning. It was not unreasonable that those lacking them should feel entitled to assistance for food, housing, health care, child care, education, and any other form of assistance they might require. There was even a clause in the Constitution that authorized taxation to “provide for the ... general Welfare.”ⁱⁱⁱ What could be clearer and more fundamental than a national responsibility to provide welfare, and the blessings necessary for all its inhabitants.

The idea wasn't new. The Bible had made it clear that we all had an obligation to help the widow, and the orphan, for they were in need. Perhaps that obligation was a voluntary one, and it was up to all of us to give charity, but the responsibility to do so was not something lightly dismissed. Certainly the widow and the orphan needed our help. It was understandable for them to seek it.

But times have changed since the days of the Bible. What was once the widow and orphan is now anyone who claims to be in need – whether because of student loans, hunger, foreclosure, sickness, lack of a job, lack of a spouse, too many children, and other similar hardships. The needs of those afflicted by these ills of society have resulted not only in quiet suffering but in noisy demonstrations around the country,^iv demonstrations that now also include those suffering from ennui and envy of those who are better off than they. It is, according to them, the rich – the one percent – who are benefiting from American prosperity and denying the remaining ninety-nine percent what the Constitution guarantees. Conservatives may consider charity to be laudable and the proper way to care for those in need, but those who protest don't want charity – they want what is properly theirs and what has been stolen by the rich.

The American system supports that claim. Taxes are collected and used to pay for entitlement programs that finance almost all the needs that people claim. It was probably the government that was the source of the education loan, and it may have been the source of funds for the mortgage of the house that is now in default. There are certainly programs that provide food or food stamps, health care, unemployment insurance, education, and general fiscal assistance. The Constitution guarantees it, and the taxpayers provide it. At least that's the contention.

But that's not the case. I used to believe that in violation of our laws, the conservatives and the rich stole from the poor and they should be made to pay for it. Now I'm not so sure. In fact, I'm now convinced that we've been following the lead of Robin Hood – we are stealing from the rich and giving to the poor, not that that's necessarily bad. I can only conclude that the liberals, who favor such policies, have lost faith in their fellows and no longer trust those who are able to do so, to give charity. So they make it a matter of government policy. It's a practical solution to a problem they perceive. And, in a certain way, it makes sense. But the sense it makes is one of perception and revenge only. Attention is focused on one solution – tax the rich – without looking at other possible solutions. It isn't even likely increasing the taxes on the “one percent” will have a significant impact on their desire to aid the rest. After all, the “rich” are already paying most of the income taxes^v and the others may not pay at all. ^vi That, however, doesn't matter. Their hearts are in the right place, and they're determined to deliver what the Founding Fathers promised.

Except they didn't. The references to “the general Welfare” in the Constitution are both directly linked to “the common Defense.”^vii The “Blessings of Liberty” were probably political rights rather than financial blessings. And taxes were to be collected for the purpose of providing for the common defense and general welfare. They were not intended for feeding the hungry and supporting the poor. That wasn't the Founding Fathers' objective. Congress, on the other hand, has expanded both the concept of taxation and “welfare.” After all, it gets votes. And during the (Franklin) Roosevelt administration it served, to a degree,^viii to limit the damage caused by the Depression. But that was certainly an expansion of the initial mandate.

And by the time the government finished propping up the poor,^ix they had come to depend on the entitlements. If the Constitution didn't guarantee them, we did. The problem, of course, is that we can't afford it. The entitlements are considered too important to end. Poverty should be eliminated and the poor should be no different from anyone else. They've got it coming. We have an obligation to all of those who claim it, and if that means higher taxes, so be it. As long as they're taxes on someone else,^x especially the rich. It looks like the taxes will be on someone else, but that will be future generations. There have to be other solutions, and I'll discuss some of them next week.

Next episode: “Write If You Get Work” -- And hang by your thumbs.^xi

i     And still think.

ii    United States Constitution. Preamble.

iii    Ibid. Article I, section 8.

iv   Indeed, around the world. But those abroad are not covered by the United States Constitution, unless they're American citizens.

v     According to The American, in 2007, the top 10% of earners paid 68% of all income taxes collected. The National Taxpayers Union tells us that it was 69.94% in 2008.

vi   The Associated Press (April 7, 2010) notes that “About 47 percent of U.S. households will pay no federal income taxes for 2009, either because their incomes were too low or because they qualified for enough credits and deductions to eliminate their tax liability, according to projections by a private research group.” Indeed, because of those credits, many households will get more money back than they paid in taxes. Meanwhile, for the same year, “the top 10 percent of earners … paid about 73 percent of the income taxes collected by the federal government.”

vii    In the first instance the word “defense” is not capitalized.

viii    World War II was the real solution to the social ills caused by the Depression.

ix    Very appropriately, the government has spent enormous amounts of tax money on bailing out those who are in need.

x     Not me! Tax someone else. I can't afford it.

xi     Bob and Ray.

You Get What You Pay For?

 

All Western democracies are, to a degree, communist.

The United States is a Western democracy.

Ergo, the United States is, to a degree, communist.

That's not a compliment nor is it an insult. It is a straightforward argument exemplifying deductive reasoning. You may disagree with the conclusion, but the logic is sound. So if you disagree, it must be that you don't accept one or both of the premises. You probably agree with the idea that the United States is a “Western democracy,”ⁱ so the first premise remains has to be the one in question. Most likely, you disagree either with the word “all” or the word “communist” – probably the latter term. So let me explain what I mean when I use it.

In a world in which the original principle was “every man for himself,” societies were established. The “State of Nature” may have a lovely ring, but the “Law of the Jungle”ⁱⁱ was the general operating principle, and it was this system from which people needed protection. So societies were established: people agreed to trade some of their liberties for protection. It was a selfish agreement, but a necessary one. In fact, the American Constitution is based on the idea that the primary function of the new government was for the protection of its citizens from each other and from outside powers. To ensure governmental adherence to its limited responsibilities, and to “protect” its citizens from … From what, precisely?

That's not so clear. The Constitution was, by design, a little ambiguous on several issues. Only twice in the body of the document is the word found – once in Article II Section 1 Paragraph 8, which includes the protection of the Constitution in the presidential oath, and once in Article IV section 4 which includes, as an obligation of the United States to its citizens, to “protect each of them against Invasion.”

Congress has seen fit to enlarge that apparently limited responsibility to include many of the vicissitudes of life. The term “promote the general welfare” also appears twice in our constitution and the idea is that concern for the “welfare” of our citizens is a primary goal, though there is ample disagreement as to the meaning of the term. It seems to be the basis for the entire idea of entitlements. Indeed, much our current concern for the equitable treatment of all our citizens falls under the rubric of “welfare” – whether that was its meaning or not.

On both occasions of its appearance, “promote the general welfare” followed “provide for the common defense.” The first occasion was in the preambleⁱ and the second in Article I Section 8, which dealt with taxation. Thomas Jefferson understood that section to indicate that the taxation was not to be used for general welfare but to provide funds to support armed forces. Along the way, however, the concept of general welfare has been expanded to include far more, and those who oppose entitlements or the taxes to support them are deemed racists or worse.ⁱⁱ Nonetheless, we are left with numerous programs offering payments to many different groupsⁱⁱⁱ in terms of cash, food stamps, housing allowances, government jobs, tax breaks, health care, and a wide variety of other means to help them make ends meet.^iv We're left with the need to protect ourselves from ourselves and from others in our own society as well as threats from abroad.

We're also left with what we view^vii as high taxes and a huge national debt. But our children and grandchildren will deal with that.

We have adopted the well-known approach: “From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.” After all, it's only fair that we help those who are in need. That's what Karl Marx said^viii and it's a shame that labeling it as a Communist doctrine gives it a bad name. What is clear, however, is that it's a costly idea, and that those who decide how to redistribute the wealth – as well as those who already have it – usually make out like bandits.

To be continued.

Next episode: “You Get What You Pay For? – Part 2” – At least most of us pay.

i     I'm sure that some of our citizens – usually members of what are politely called “fringe groups” – would disagree, but I'll proceed without their concurrence.

ii     Rudyard Kipling, in The Jungle Book, spoke of it this way:

              “Now this is the Law of the Jungle – as old and as true as the sky;

             And the Wolf that shall keep it may prosper, but the Wolf that shall break it must die.”

iii    “We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence [sic], promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”

That's the preamble, and it states the purpose of the entire document. Parts of it are quite clear although others, especially the idea of the “general Welfare,” are somewhat ambiguous and subject to interpretation. The same is true of the other reference.

iv    The subject of entitlements, in the context of that compromise document, the Constitution, will be treated in a future blog.

v     Including large sums for the rich by means of programs, loopholes, and various kinds of other benefits. Also gaining by such means are members of Congress, and politicians in general, who seem to be entitled to whatever they can get their hands on.

vi     The ends justify the means.

vii     Not everyone would agree, however. Some countries charge higher taxes and provide greater benefits.

viii    Critique of the Gotha Program, 1875. The full paragraph in which it appears reads:

"In a higher phase of communist society, after the enslaving subordination of the individual to the division of labor, and therewith also the antithesis between mental and physical labor, has vanished; after labor has become not only a means of life but life's prime want; after the productive forces have also increased with the all-around development of the individual, and all the springs of co-operative wealth flow more abundantly—only then can the narrow horizon of bourgeois right be crossed in its entirety and society inscribe on its banners: From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.”