Today I want to talk about what I believe to be one of the most dangerous trends in modern society. The view of the government as a resource. When one hears the terms “entitlement” or “welfare state” political rhetoric has trained us to think of the poor. Our minds have been trained to perceive welfare and entitlement as the domain of the welfare queen, a lazy person that pursues the life strategy of suckling at the teat of the government. These people do exist, though I would argue that the majority of those in need receiving some form of government aid take it in good faith, and why should they not? After all, entitlement is not, as we have been led to believe, solely the domain of the poor. Many of the wealthy, indeed some of the largest corporations in the world, also believe themselves to be entitled to free money. This is because the culture of entitlement in this country is far more pervasive than we have been led to believe. The poor are not the only people out there that seek government assistance to maintain the state of their existence.
The more extreme of the conservative pundits shout loud and long about all of the awful poor people that want the government to pay for luxuries such as housing and food. These same conservative pundits seem to ignore the other side of the coin, the entitled rich. We must ask ourselves why so much hullabaloo is made about one kind of entitlement, and not the other. Why are the poor not deserving of help and food, but few cry foul when the government subsidizes massive energy conglomerates, banks, oil companies, and agriculture corporations? This says nothing of our nation’s habit of propping up dictators and fellow democracies alike with foreign aid.
So, just how pervasive is this entitlement state of mind? How much money do corporations receive every year compared to the amount spent on social welfare programs? Which of the two types of entitlements is the most insidious? A study performed by conservative think tank “The Cato Institute” found that the cost of corporate welfare, while difficult to calculate, to the taxpayer totals at least $100 billion annually http://www.cato.org/publications/congressional-testimony/corporate-welfare-spending-vs-entrepreneurial-economy. The cost to the U.S. Taxpayer of social welfare programs? $422 billion according to http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/. This number includes assistance for families and children, unemployment, the unemployment trust, worker’s compensation, housing, and the earned income tax credit which goes only to the working poor.
What does this mean? The welfare programs for families and children cost taxpayers $110 billion, tax credits for the working poor cost around $160 billion. The rest of the programs are mostly temporary assistance programs to keep people from falling off a ledge. Family assistance programs cost the U.S. Taxpayer just $10 billion more than corporate welfare. Thus far the entitlement mindsets seem to be fairly equal monetarily, but which is more insidious? Lets look at the purpose of a family versus the purpose of a corporation.
The purpose of the family is to raise children, to provide them with opportunity and moral guidance, to love and care for each other. What happens when a poor family cannot sustain itself? They can become homeless, children can be taken and put into the foster care system which is already overloaded to the breaking point (and, by the way, also costs billions of dollars to operate). So the bulk of the cost of family assistance welfare, which goes to families caring for children, would likely be transferred to the foster care system when parents lose their children due to being unable to support them. What do we get in return for the investment? Fewer starving and homeless children, and more children in a loving family environment.
The purpose of a corporation is to provide customers with products and services, and thereby make a profit. What happens when a corporation cannot sustain itself? It goes bankrupt, the products and services it provided, if there is demand for them, will be provided by other corporations, often more efficiently, often at lower cost, benefiting everybody except those that ran the bankrupt corporation poorly.
Corporate welfare props up defunct corporations that do their jobs poorly and could be replaced by better and stronger corporations. We should not have a problem with this because corporations are not people. A corporation is not a child that is dependent on others for its existence. Corporations are not entitled to life. People are, if our declaration of independence is to be believed, entitled to life. We are not giving the poor a rich or lavish existence with our social welfare programs. We’re enabling them to eke out a meager existence in the hope that in the future, they, or their children, will become successful. This is a worthy investment. Propping up corporations that have failed at their only purpose, is not a worthy investment.
We, as a civilized society, must embrace the idea that we value human life enough to support those that cannot support themselves. However, I see no reason to continue to support bloated and defunct corporations so that their tired, outdated leadership can continue to pretend to be successful and buy another yacht. The most destructive entitlement mindset of today is that of those who possess more than any human being needs, and ask the government to keep intact the means by which they support their lavish lifestyles. The wealthy corporate welfare queen treats the government as a resource to be used to prop up a lifestyle to which they feel entitled and it’s time for that to stop.
No comments:
Post a Comment