my stance on social programs
Recently, Governor Schwarzenegger proposed a large budget cut for the majority of programs in California. People were not thrilled about it. So I take this opportunity to talk about why I think that it was the right thing to do.
As I understand it, the reason for the budget cuts was to make up for a gap between the income and expenditures of the state, which is called a "budget deficit." Awesome.
I believe that the mindset of government has been very similar to the actions of the people in recent years, in terms of fiscal management. People (probably more in this state than others) don't seem to believe that there is anything that they should not have. The basic concept of spending less that we earn so that we have something in case of emergency seems to have escaped our society completely, as it has government.
My immediate thought was that this is causal, that the government's bad example was causing lenience from people in their own lives. Now I think it is more generalized slack over the whole of our population, including (and maybe especially) government officials. The average American's consumer debt rises, and government debt rises, too.
Now, about the budget cuts. Yes, I think it does some harm to take money away from social programs and schools. I think it is fair to say that I would rather not shut down state parks. I think education is an important investment for a strong economy in the future.
Here is the kicker: Why have we let ourselves depend on government for these programs in the first place? Do I believe that we should care for the poor and the disabled and even those who work but have a hard time affording a decent standard of living? Absolutely. Those are Christian values that will continue long after we do. I even believe that it is right for every citizen receive available health care. But, when we turn and say that the government is the only way for those things to happen, or worse, blame the government for taking away resources from those people and blame it for causing problems in the first place, we are denying the founding principle of democracy; that the government is us.
It is not the responsibility of the US Government to take care of the poor, or the sick, or those disadvantaged in any way (be it by youth, old age, etc.). It is the responsibility of citizens, as citizens and not as government agents, to relieve suffering, to make sacrifices for causes they deem worthy, and to correct any problems to the extent they are able (applying wise judgment and taking into account their own situation). If we want to take care of state parks, or schools, or the disabled among us, (this is not a comprehensive list of worthy causes that need attention, just a few obvious ones) let us band together and efficiently organize and volunteer our time to those causes, and to whatever other cause we choose. Let each able citizen maintain his finances so as to be able to contribute time, energy, and resources to those causes he deems worthy, and then let him work to make those things happen. This is the spirit in which it was said "And so, my fellow Americans, ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country."
As I understand it, the reason for the budget cuts was to make up for a gap between the income and expenditures of the state, which is called a "budget deficit." Awesome.
I believe that the mindset of government has been very similar to the actions of the people in recent years, in terms of fiscal management. People (probably more in this state than others) don't seem to believe that there is anything that they should not have. The basic concept of spending less that we earn so that we have something in case of emergency seems to have escaped our society completely, as it has government.
My immediate thought was that this is causal, that the government's bad example was causing lenience from people in their own lives. Now I think it is more generalized slack over the whole of our population, including (and maybe especially) government officials. The average American's consumer debt rises, and government debt rises, too.
Now, about the budget cuts. Yes, I think it does some harm to take money away from social programs and schools. I think it is fair to say that I would rather not shut down state parks. I think education is an important investment for a strong economy in the future.
Here is the kicker: Why have we let ourselves depend on government for these programs in the first place? Do I believe that we should care for the poor and the disabled and even those who work but have a hard time affording a decent standard of living? Absolutely. Those are Christian values that will continue long after we do. I even believe that it is right for every citizen receive available health care. But, when we turn and say that the government is the only way for those things to happen, or worse, blame the government for taking away resources from those people and blame it for causing problems in the first place, we are denying the founding principle of democracy; that the government is us.
It is not the responsibility of the US Government to take care of the poor, or the sick, or those disadvantaged in any way (be it by youth, old age, etc.). It is the responsibility of citizens, as citizens and not as government agents, to relieve suffering, to make sacrifices for causes they deem worthy, and to correct any problems to the extent they are able (applying wise judgment and taking into account their own situation). If we want to take care of state parks, or schools, or the disabled among us, (this is not a comprehensive list of worthy causes that need attention, just a few obvious ones) let us band together and efficiently organize and volunteer our time to those causes, and to whatever other cause we choose. Let each able citizen maintain his finances so as to be able to contribute time, energy, and resources to those causes he deems worthy, and then let him work to make those things happen. This is the spirit in which it was said "And so, my fellow Americans, ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country."
posted by Sterling at
9:11 AM
4 Comments:
Excellently put, for the most part Sterling. I've been saying similar things for a long time, in that socialism is basically forced charity, and where is the moral aspect to charity if it's forced?
Also an interesting idea to compare the state's spending habits with the American people's. I never really made the connection.
One thing I disagree with, though, is where you state that "it is not the responsibility of the US Government to take care of the poor, or the sick, or those disadvantaged in any way." Well, the government still requires that those people pay taxes, and so I think the government SHOULD help take care of them, to a point. And in either case, I don't think the poor or sick should have to depend on the unsolicited charity of fellow citizens for their necessary health care and various bills, mainly because we, as a society, haven't reached that point. That's way closer to "City of Enoch" status than we're at right now. It's just not fair to ask the poor and the sick to depend on the vacillating charitable feelings of what we already described as a fiscally-stupid populous.
This comment has been removed by the author.
Right. SINCE the government taxes people, it should take care of them. But I'm not a big supporter of a lot of our taxes in the first place. A lot of this is speaking to an ideal, I know. Still, I like to think that wisely-made decisions look at eventually achieving the ideal.
Well, the ideal in this case involves idealistic people, not idealistic institutions. What I mean by that is in the situation you're describing, man helps his fellow man in a Christ-like way. I'm not sure governmental policy (aka what the "wisely-made decisions" are going to be about) should be dependent on people knowing to be good, moral, charitable human beings and acting on that knowledge. I just don't think you can depend on that.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home