By Alan
Caruba
Lyndon B.
Johnson, President from 1963 to 1969, is probably unknown to the generations
since then except for having escalated the Vietnam War. A memorial in
Washington, D.C., is a sad reminder of the more than 58,000 young lives
sacrificed. As time went along, it became so unpopular LBJ decided not to run
again for a second full term. He is likely recalled less for his “War on
Poverty”, a classic, liberal government program that to this day has not
eliminated poverty in America.
The
syndicated columnist and John M. Olin Distinguished Professor of Economics at
George Mason University, Walter Williams, recently wrote about “Poverty Nonsense”, saying, “There’s nothing intellectually challenging or unusual about
poverty. For most of mankind’s existence, his most optimistic scenario was to
be able to eke out enough to subsist for another day. Poverty has been
mankind’s standard fare and remains so for most of mankind.”
One need only
read the Old and New Testaments to realize that poverty in ancient times was a
concern. "Tzedek, tzedek you shall pursue" --
justice justice you shall pursue (Deut. 16:20). There's a basic human
responsibility to reach out to others. Giving of your time and your money is a
statement that "I will do whatever I can to help." This reflects the
Jewish concept of Tikkun Olam, repairing the world. In Matthew 26:11, Jesus
says “The poor you will always have with you, but you will not always
have me.”
It is a liberal fantasy that a society can
eliminate poverty, but that does not mean a society does not have an obligation
to help the less fortunate. It is the tension between these two views that
separates conservatives and liberals, but every time a liberal president has
held office, it has become a budget-busting
calamity.
The most recent example has been the soaring spending on welfare since Obama has been
president. The financial crisis did
require some effort to provide “a safety net” for those laid off from their
jobs and some argument could be made to help homeowners, although many of their
mortgages were granted by banks under pressure from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac
with the full knowledge they were bad loans. They would become known as “toxic
assets” that dragged down banks, requiring a massive government bailout to
avoid a collapse of the entire system.
A recent article by Robert Rector of the
Heritage Foundation, based on an October report of the nonpartisan
Congressional Research Service, spells out the current state of government
welfare spending. “Roughly 100 million
people—one-third of the U.S. population—receive aid from at least one
means-tested welfare program each month.”
“ Average benefits come to around $9,000 per recipient. If
converted to cash, means-tested welfare spending is more than five times the
amount needed to eliminate all poverty in the United States.”
Federal:
At $746 billion, federal means-tested spending exceeded spending on Medicare
($480 billion) , Social Security ($725 billion), or the defense budget ($540
billion).
State:
In 2011, state contributions into federal welfare programs came to $201
billion, and independent state programs contributed around $9 billion.
Combined:
Overall means-tested welfare spending from federal and state sources reach from
all sources totaled $956 billion.
This is money from taxpayers whose personal
budgets are squeezed by the rising cost of everything or which has to be
borrowed by the federal government.
Rector said “Obama’s big spending plans
will result in ruinous and unsustainable budget deficits.”
Why federal welfare requires eighty
separate programs is testimony to the slow creep of government growth over the
years since LBJ’s War on Poverty. That war was lost before it began, but it
reflects the way such programs buy the votes of those dependent on them. It is
a bad way to run a nation. It is bad politics. It is bad economics. And it will
lead to an inevitable collapse in an economy that has shown virtually no growth
in the past four years, an anemic 1.7 percent in the gross domestic product.
Voters disillusioned by the failure of
Obama’s “stimulus” or Biden’s promise of a “recovery summer” in 2010 have the
opportunity to end this cycle of national impoverishment in November. It may be
our last chance.
© Alan Caruba, 2012
Poverty?
ReplyDeleteIf you want to see real poverty go to any Third World country - starving kids sleeping on the streets, open sewers, and houses built from cardboard and tin cans.
...And the horrible smells!
I will never forget the sickening smell of cow manure being burnt for fuel on a cold winter morning in Peshawar, Pakistan - or the more gross smell of human waste in the harbor of Manila.
No, we don't have real poverty in the USA - unless we reelect Obama and his Democommie nation destroyers.
You can't tax yourself out of debt - nor can you save every person from poverty or disease. But, charity does begin at home and not overseas!
ReplyDeleteAs the saying goes: 'teach a man to fish and you lose a Democratic voter'.
Poverty is a mindset, more than a numerical value. I know people who live in rural areas, raising chickens and goats, living off the grid with basic necessities, growing their own food, earning less than $8,000 a year that live a life of wealth, being able to discuss a wide variety of educated topics. I have also met gangbangers at the E.R. with $15,000 cash in their pockets and a bullet hole in their side unable to take care of their basic needs, living in a boarded up house, peeing in a five gallon paint bucket, meanwhile adorned in gold chains, with an expensive watch. Tell me which one is actually poor.
ReplyDelete