But What About The Poor? Reflections on Government Paternalism

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?