“The government since the 1960s has thrown billions of dollars at social programs for the poor and guess what? We still have poor people!”
True.
But we’ve spent billions of dollars on firefighting services, and we still have house fires.
And when your house catches fire, you expect a government-paid service of firefighters to show up and put the fire out.
We’ve spent billions on crime and crime prevention, and there is still crime. And when an intruder breaks into your house and attacks you, you hope that taxpayer funded police office shows up and saves you.
We pay for these and other services from the government to save us in these moments of crisis, make-or-break times when a timely rescue can spare us a lifetime of misery.
Where you draw the line between a necessary government rescue and unnecessary government waste defines where you are on the political spectrum.
Let’s say you work full-time as an independent contractor. Your house catches fire. The fire department shows up and saves your house, but you are seriously injured.
An ambulance takes you to the hospital, but you don’t have health insurance. You get hit with thousands of dollars of hospital bills. You lose work and income. This could be a worse disaster than if you had lost your house.
The health care system needed reform to save average people from having to face staggering medical bills on their own. And it needed reform not so that more money could be thrown at a problem, but so that people could get health care with less waste and greed from the insurance companies.
The execution of that reform is still being debated. The details can still be argued, but the need is undeniable. Something had to be done.
The common campaign theme of the T.E.A. party candidates seems to be borrowed from a JG Wentworth commercial – “It’s my money, and I need it now.” They have attacked or called for dismantling a variety of federal programs and services ranging from Social Security, unemployment, the minimum wage, the Department of Education and health care. One candidate has even attacked the Civil Rights legislation of the 1960s in the name of resisting government control.
The call for smaller government and lower taxes is not new. And that’s a position I’ve always respected. After all, you can’t get something without paying for it or knowing from where it will be funded. Ignoring the costs of a program within a government budget will only lead to runaway deficits and economic disaster.
The philosophy of the tax-and-spend liberal of the 70s and 80s does not work. Government should be leaner. However, I believe government can be fiscally responsible and have a social conscience.
Give the T.E.A. party candidates the kind of changes they are shouting for, and you are sure to have more tax dollars in your pocket. But it will be a government without a conscience, without a means of helping those whose lives are in crisis.
In a way, we will be like the neighbors to that home in South Fulton, Tennessee, that the firefighters just let burn to the ground. The fire department made sure the neighbors' homes did not burn, but it left a bad taste in the mouths of many who watched. They followed the rules, but it was a rule with no conscience. No wisdom.
When our neighbors lives are hit with disaster, either financial, medical or otherwise, shall we have a government that will do nothing? Shall we stand by and watch as our neighbors' lives are destroyed?
No comments:
Post a Comment