I’m gonna step in the mind of a bigger state thinker for a second.
In this mind, the goal is to identify all individuals and/or families that are in some sort of need. This need could be based on a scale of sorts; usually income based. That is, if income is too low, programs should be created or funded in order that some definition of “basic needs” is met.
These basic needs could be supplemented by straight cash, tax breaks, food programs, rent programs, energy programs or any other such program.
Okay, I may disagree with that mindset, but for now, that’s the mindset I’m in. Now, given this reality, the goal, as a criteria for success, would be to make sure that all qualified individuals and/or families, would be identified and enrolled. We don’t want a shadow population of folks who are in need of assistance or care, to exist.
In this aspect, I get that the bigger state thinker would want to expand the rolls of these programs. I get that, right?
To the point that we want to include all qualified individuals in the program, I understand why someone would want to make sure the program “grew”. I can even see the logic behind expanding the criteria of “need” to include an ever growing population. What I am NOT sure about, and what I really truly guard against, is, “Do our goals change when all qualified individuals are enrolled?”
In other words, when all the poor and less fortunate have been enrolled in these programs, is there any effort to get them UNqualified? For example, give them what ever it is that is needed to be able to create a level of income that allows them to leave the program.
To me, there are two kinds of charitable giving, two kinds of programs that can be set up. One is where resources are gathered and distributed just to make the ends meet. Food to feed the hungry, coats to warm the cold. Stuff like that. I think of that as “give a man a fish” kinda program.
Me? I’m interested in the “teach a man to fish” kinda programs. And I just don’t see the rigor, the discipline, the will or, frankly, even the desire on part of the policy makers to craft such steps into their programs. I don’t see a willingness to exhibit the tough love that even parents engage in with their own children. A love that says, hell-demands, that by paying your rent and your heat and your car payment, I am not helping you in life, I am, in fact, hurting you.
Liberals often claim that the right cares more about the unborn than about the orphan or the single mom or the poor. There may be something to that, maybe. But given that it’s the conservative that is more charitable than the liberal, I don’t buy it. Rather, I see it that the programs favored by the conservative more resemble the “programs” that they teach and enforce upon their own children. Namely sacrifice, hard work, goal deferral and plain old “do the job right”.
I just don’t get how feeding and housing a person for years and years helps them.
Am I wrong?
