« Big Storm Brings More Rain | Main | Border Security Plan Tested »
February 22, 2009
The Democrat Stance on Public Assistance is Morally Bankrupt
by Tina Grazier
"Give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish, and you feed him for life." - Lao Tzu
The quote above is often referenced by people of all political stripes to demonstrate a universal concept that is brilliant in its simplicity and easily understood. One would think that it would serve as a foundation for sound policy regarding the poor. Apparently for some of our lawmakers it is but a convenient phrase used to impress or to feign compassion and wisdom as a means of garnering votes. A recent example of this hypocrisy can be found in the stimulus bill.
The portion in question is the provision that reverses “Temporary Assistance for Needy Families.” This welfare reform program, signed into law by President Clinton, and supported by Democrats and Republicans, was designed to encourage people off of the welfare rolls and into the work force. It was highly successful:
"Change' we can't afford,” By Glen Meakem – TribLive (Pittsburgh PA)
** According to the U.S. Census Bureau, between 1995 (the year before welfare reform was enacted) and 2003, the number of Americans in poverty fell by 3.5 million. *** Children in poverty declined by 2.9 million. *** The number of black children in poverty declined by 1.2 million, the lowest level in U.S. history. *** The number of children born out of wedlock also stopped increasing, leveling off at about 32 percent after decades of increases under old policies. *** According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, the number of hungry children in the U.S. was cut in half , declining by 420,000. **
A government, or a society, that truly cares about people and wishes to see them live productive, satisfying lives does not relegate the poorest among them to a life scraping by on welfare handouts with little hope of altering their futures. The “Temporary Assistance for Needy Families” program offered a five year window of opportunity for recipients to take steps toward building a better future by going to school, receiving specific career training or finding a good paying job while receiving assistance. The funding mechanism encouraged states to move people off welfare and into the mainstream of society. Reversing the measure will surely result in negative outcomes for children and families. This action borders on the criminal. If a parent took similar attitude, depriving a child of educational opportunities for instance, he might be charged with child neglect.
Moving in this direction is surely immoral if not criminal. Why would our government, the president, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, most Democrats and three Republicans, compose and/or affix their signatures to such legislation? One explanation is they didn’t all know the provision was buried in the enormous bill rushed through Congress. A more likely explanation for many is that the bill, crafted in secrecy and touted as legislation to “stimulate the economy,” was really a tool of manipulation. The creators and crafters of this provision wanted to create dependency on the Federal government and "dependent loyalty" to the Democrat Party.
There are many people across America working hard to get the homeless off the streets. Some of these people are mentally ill or disabled and will always need help. But the goal for all of the others is to give them an opportunity to build a more productive satisfying life for themselves. Why would we want anything less for the poor? Why would we implement programs that discourage efforts to uplift people and make their lives productive and satisfying?
The new Chairman of the Republican National Committee, Michael Steele, weighs in on economic opportunity:
“If we are to stimulate our economy for real growth, we must empower more Americans to move up the economic ladder. We won't be healthy as a nation until we do. Republicans have in the past been accused of caring more about the statistics that define the poor than the reforms necessary to lift the poor out of poverty. However, if we are to be true to the foundational principles of the Party of Lincoln--free enterprise, individual liberties and access to equal opportunities--then we know that any efforts to improve our economy must include a pathway of empowerment and opportunity for the poor. Some have faith in government in order to create such a pathway; Republicans have faith in people. – Michael Steele, Chairman, RNC, posted at “Dip In The Mix”
The Rev. Jesse Lee Peterson addressed this issue in his book, “Lessons of Katrina” and in remarks he made following Hurricane Katrina. His wise words highlighted the dependent black population in New Orleans but his thoughts on dependency apply to people of all races. The following excerpts were taken from his blog, palosverdesblog - Rebuilding the Man:
" Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." – George Santayana *** In “Lessons of Katrina” I wrote about Alexis DeTocqueville’s “Memoirs on Pauperism” (1835) recounting his observation that the large pauper class in Britain was a result of the right to public assistance dating to Elizabethan times. *** Although Tocqueville’s Democracy in America says nothing about American pauperism, he warns that the temptation to rely on government entitlements would inevitably erode personal independence. The flooding due to Hurricane Katrina exposed a pauper class in New Orleans. *** A Brit friend doubted my account of Tocqueville and the British welfare system. I was reminded of Santayana’s warning above. *** Tocqueville was introduced to the evils of pauperism by the J.B. Say (1828) book about the French social system. Say restates the Malthusian theory that population always tends to exceed the means of existence and does so even more when a policy of relief encourages the very poor to have large families supported not by their labor but by the government. ** (all emphasis his)
America will thrive in abundance if her people are strong, self-sufficient and well educated. Increasing welfare rolls and creating generational dependency will not achieve that reality. Our strength, our prosperity, depend not on government or diversity but on individual self-sufficiency and moral strength.
Positive and useful information:
“Poor Politics,” by Robert Rector, National Review
Image: “The Breadline” by George Segal (FDR)
Posted by Post Scripts at February 22, 2009 3:28 PM
Comments
God, you people got gall. Community college in this state used to be tuition-free. State college tuition was $50 plus books. Shall I tell you who put a stop to that! Shall I! The Gipper, that's who, and with your wholehearted collusion.
So just SHUT UP! You made this bloody mess. You think I'm gonna listen to you bemoan it, you're out of your mind!
Posted by: Libby | February 22, 2009 7:18 PM
Well the subject was welfare Libby but I'll take you on anyway.
First of all...nothing is free!
Secondly, there's a great deal of expense involved in providing an education to students...why shouldn't "he who benefits" contribute to his own education?
As for the Gipper, the changes he made were to the University system and were obviously made because he felt they were necessary given budget constraints. So what? Funding doesn't grow on trees you know and the explosion in applicants due to the Boomers at that time certainly put a strain on budgets (and necessary expansion plans)...not to mention the cost involved in dealing with the ingrates who made institutions of higher learning into war zones at the time for their own useless entertainment. UGH!
But let's see what Reagan did, and what he had to say, about education while governor in a "Reason" interview:
http://www.reason.com/news/show/29318.html
Under Reagan’s administration, state funding for public schools (grades K- 12) increased 105 percent (although enrollment went up only 5 percent), state support for junior colleges increased 323 percent, and grants and loans to college students increased 900 percent.
REASON: Many students at universities are middle class or upper middle class and tax support means that a lot of the lower class/lower income people are paying for that education. Don’t you feel that there’s something immoral or unethical about redistributing wealth from the lower class up to the middle class.
REAGAN: Yes. And I used that argument in my fight to get tuition in the University of California. I have to tell you about that fight with the University of California–they were very much opposed! They wanted it kept totally free, as it had been. The tuition I was proposing was less than 10 percent of the actual cost of educating the student–which is more than $3,500 now, and at that time was roughly $3,000. I was proposing $300 tuition–and I used the exact same argument you’re using. Finally, tuition was instituted.
But, I had always said that tuition should never be a block to anyone getting an education who could not otherwise afford to go to the university. I fought for a plan that would have allowed the financially needy student to defer until after graduation all or part of his tuition. And the same university administration that had fought me and did not want tuition at all, fought me equally hard on deferred tuition and did not want that benefit for the students!
Libby we know who made this mess...all the people with their hand out working with all the people who want their votes...and all the people scamming the system they created, like the many former Clinton cronies at Fannie Mae. The rest of us have been busy working, saving and paying our own way in life, including higher education costs.
One final thought...boo hoo.
Posted by: Tina | February 22, 2009 10:42 PM
"First of all...nothing is free!"
Of course not, but I know my grandparents were only too happy to see their tax dollars spent on their children's higher education. My parents likewise. My sister would have liked to see the same, but you all nixed that, didn't ya.
We got a whole lot of people on the unemployment rolls right now that will be needing to learn to fish. They got no tuition money. So?
Posted by: Libby | February 25, 2009 2:32 PM
Libby I employed a kid who was working three jobs and going to school at Chico State to get his EE degree. He was a Mexican kid with a single working Mom. After I hired him he was able to give up his other jobs and that made it easier to finish school but I know he would have done it the harder way. If he can do it anyone can.
We fund education. It is one of the big bureaucratic sink holes that sucks up money and a lot of it doesn't benefit the students. They could streamline, cut out waste, and cut some of the courses that are not really necessary but instead they always cry for more.
It's easy to place blame on conservatives for the lousy state of the educational system but you tell me Libby...who is in charge of the purse? Who created the format for the educational system? Liberals have owned the institution for at least thirty years, maybe longer. They have been in charge of how money gets spent. If you have a problem with it I suggest you take it up with them. The money is there. It just isn't being used wisely. We have tons of graduates with degrees for which there is no practical use...money spent for nothing if you ask me. Entire bureaucracies have been built around rediculous degrees...money wasted if you ask me.
You agree there is no "free" lunch...so who pays? A lot of the people who pay are peope who still can't afford college for their own kids...that's dumb! Why should they be asked to give up more and more of what they earn when they can plainly see the waste?
Posted by: Tina | February 25, 2009 5:27 PM
Well, bully for you. Unhappily, you is not all there is. And you have a lot of trouble with that, don't you?
Posted by: Libby | February 25, 2009 7:46 PM
It isn't bully for me...it's bully for my employee! He's a terrific young man!
Nope...and if that's your best parting shot (your tell is that you laps into southern "negro speak")...I'm doing just fine. Thanks for your "concern" though.
Posted by: Tina | February 25, 2009 9:21 PM