There's Nothing Compassionate about Welfare

There's Nothing Compassionate about Welfare

by Mark Luedtke

One of the most damaging political lies of the last century is the liberal lie that welfare is compassionate. If a liberal robs you at the point of gun and gives your money to somebody else, is that compassionate? How about if he has county activists assisting him? How about if he uses the police power of government instead of a gun to rob you? To be fair, for the last 6 years George Bush and conservatives used compassionate conservatism as an excuse to do the same type of robbery.

There's nothing compassionate about robbery even under the charade that the government is stealing for the common good. And if you don't think the government is taking your tax money by force, you can test your theory by refusing to pay your taxes, but I don't recommend it.

Real compassion is reaching deep in your own pocket or volunteering your own time to a cause, not using the police power of government to steal from other people's pockets. Welfare activists prefer the latter because they sacrifice other people's money to meet the needs of their particular cause instead of sacrificing more of their own time and money.

The Montgomery Co. Human Services levy is no different. The Human Services Department helps needy people, but they provide welfare, and private charities are always more effective with less money. If Mr. Fitz and his activists wanted to perform a real service for the needy of Montgomery Co., they would set up a charity to replace the Human Services Department then work to lower taxes based on the savings. Every citizen would win, but that would demand activists sacrifice more time and money. So the activists are taking the more selfish road – trying to get a tiny number of Montgomery Co. residents, just over half of low voter turnout, to force every county resident to support their personal cause so they don't have to work so hard for it.

Welfare supporters typically paint opponents as cold and unfeeling. Nothing could be further from the truth. Some people have a history of cancer in their family and prefer to donate their hard earned money to cancer research instead. Some families have an autistic child and prefer to devote their time and money raising that child to best of their ability. Welfare supporters would restrict the financial freedom of those people and all citizens to implement personal preferences. There's nothing compassionate about taking freedom or money by force.

When a group of activists floods the polls in a small election and subsequently uses government force to take money from everybody else for their own cause, it divides the community in a destructive fashion. Citizens naturally resent having freedom and money taken from them by force to support another's cause, but welfare activists don't care.

The social engineering inherent in every welfare program also divides communities. When government force prioritizes what causes get lots of money, what causes get little, and what causes get none, government is engineering social priorities based on the demands of activists instead of allowing the people at large to freely make those decisions with their own charitable contributions. Welfare activists don't trust the people with these decisions. Americans should reject the plethora of welfare programs dividing communities, states, and the nation that has helped tear this country apart.

Welfare is damaging to recipients as well as providers. 4 billion years of evolution genetically predisposed humans to taking the easy road for survival purposes. Welfare seduces recipients into embracing that easy road. Welfare becomes a spider's web, trapping many recipients in government handouts. Welfare also undermines families by supplanting the support role traditionally reserved to families.

A better solution to caring for the needy, one that will bring the country back together, promote freedom, economic growth and free Americans from the welfare trap, is for people to take back their money and power for charity from government by eliminating all welfare programs and cutting taxes. Welfare supporters claim that Americans don't give enough to charity to make this effective. Baloney. Even with the higher local, state, and federal taxes because of welfare programs, Americans gave $300 billion to charity in 2006. Eliminating welfare and cutting taxes will free the people at large to determine social priorities through charitable donations, end the social engineering from welfare, stimulate the economy, and reduce the need for charity in the first place. Now that's compassionate!

Additionally, adopting the FairTax would effectively grant all Americans about a 30% pay raise too. Some of that new discretionary income would be spent, saved, invested, and given to charity. The economic renaissance spurred by adopting the FairTax would bring manufacturing jobs back and create more quality jobs, further reducing the need for charity. This would create a positive feedback cycle of increased production and reduced need for charity that would leave only the truly needy out of work, and the overflowing charity coffers would support them well.

Increasing economic freedom - lowering taxes and reducing government spending - is the key to getting people off welfare and out of poverty. Private charity can support the truly needy. We've experienced that increasing taxes and government locally, in Ohio, and in the US chases jobs away and exacerbates the welfare problem. Government is the problem. Freeing people is the solution.