There are problems with the idea of government paternalism
as the solution to the problem of “the poor”—a problem that Someone once told
us would not be solvable by us in the first place. These problems are best illustrated
by asking three questions.
1.
IS THIS SOMETHING GOVERNMENT
SHOULD DO?
Because we are a nation of laws, rather than men, all policy ideas should
necessarily begin rooted in principle, rather than mere pragmatism. Our Framers
were understandably suspicious of strong, centralized authority. They had just
seen the effects of concentrating too much power in one person or branch of
government, and of giving government too much scope and responsibility. More
important to them even than “equality” was the preservation of individual liberties—the
guarantee that each individual citizen would have the guaranteed freedom. For
this reason, the Framers designed a limited constitutional republic. They deliberately
kept the “federal” portion of it quite small and limited. As Jefferson once
opined, “a government big enough to take your income is big enough to take your
life.” Since freedom comes with responsibility, the Framers envisioned a republic
in which individuals were free to pursue their self-interests, and therefore
responsible for those interests as well. Was there poverty in those days? Like nothing
you’ve ever seen, actually…but the Framers dispersed governing power from a central
apparatus to localities for the purpose of dealing with such problems. If my next
door neighbor falls on hard times, it is my responsibility to help him, along
with the other neighbors. If there are enough children in our neighborhood to go
to school, we neighbors band together and voluntarily pool our resources to
fund an “independent” school district. If we feel that we are all willing to
pay extra in taxes to help the neighbor two streets over, we agree to do that
through our local representation. With all important politics being local,
there is no need for a big central apparatus to “fix” things or “provide
things.” In fact, the Framers were so afraid of the dangers of an expanding government
that they gave our federal government one job: security. Simply put, the
government’s job is to protect me from you, you from me, and both of us from that
guy over there. That’s it. And every time we’ve tried to put some new task onto
the federal government—EVERY TIME—it has failed, miserably, consistently, and
expensively. The Framers didn’t design a federal government to provide for
people. Therefore, legally, constitutionally, the government SHOULD NOT be
doing this.
Moreover, this premise is also the most immoral one of all, because it is
predicated entirely on the confiscation of private property—as opposed to the
voluntary local organization envisioned by the Framers. The usurpation of
federal government’s apparatus in order to create some form of “equality” is
the most odious use of all, for it cannot be accomplished without also squelching
the individual liberties that the Framers envisioned. I gave over $12000 in
charity last year, and the federal government collected almost twice that in
taxes to boot. Tell me again how I’m not “paying my fair share.” What the New Testament
speaks of is the $12000…..the forcible confiscation is not a biblical idea
whatsoever.
2.
IS THIS SOMETHING GOVERNMENT
CAN DO?
It’s now been more than 50 years
since LBJ declared “war on poverty.” And it’s been almost 30 years since the
first definitive, peer-reviewed research came out demonstrating how effective
those programs have been. The answer: not very effective at all. In fact, the
research indicates that almost all of those programs led to increased graft,
corruption, and HIGHER unemployment and poverty rates. Additionally, sociologists,
churchmen and other students of culture have repeatedly documented the loss of
dignity, pride and work ethic among populations dependent on federal
government. The Framers were right: Individuals must bear responsibility for
their freedom, or it is worthless. The government spending from 1965-1995 can
be directly connected to the decimation of the black family, the increase in
drug use and other substance abuse in urban areas, and the decline in education
in urban areas. When government TRIES to take care of people, it does so
poorly, and is vulnerable to corruption (the stasis for all bureaucracy).
Meanwhile, local churches (like the
one I pastor) are regularly involved in the provision for the poor. The idea
that we “need” the government for this is tautological: the federal government
is largely responsible for creating this vicious cycle of poverty among many
Americans; now we’re supposed to get them to “fix” it? This thinking never ends
well. Let private individuals and organizations do what they’re designed to do….believing
that government “can” and “should” do this betrays a strange faith in central
authority that is actually dangerous to all of us in the long run.
BUT CAN THE PRIVATE SECTOR REALLY ACHIEVE
HELP FOR THE POOR?
How do you think it was done for
the first century of our existence? Without an income tax at all, our nation expanded
from coast to coast, developed a university system that was the envy of the
Western world, and produced a literature and aesthetic that rivaled Old Europe
(at least until the postmoderns came along). When someone asks this question, what
they are really doing is betraying their suspicion that human beings can be
generous—possibly a transference of their own generosity habits. This question has
been asked and answered, and it’s still getting answered every single day of
the week in towns and cities and communities around the nation. There isn’t a
single thing being done by federal government (except security, its constitutional
mandate) that isn’t also being done cheaper, better and more efficiently by the
private sector. From space exploration to education to lawn care, we the people
do a good job, while the government barely gets anything done at all. The real question
that needs to be asked is, “Where did you come by all this faith in the federal
government?” A rudimentary study of history will disabuse you of that notion in
a hurry. The Framers trusted the citizens of these United States, and
deliberately created a government that was too small to trust….and then inculcated
all of our founding documents with a suspicion toward centralized authority. Do
you honestly think you have thought through this better than they?
