Give a man a fish and he’ll eat for a day; teach him to fish, and he’ll still need to pay the Government for a license to allow him to do so.
This is the problem with deamonizing food stamps and social welfare programs (note I don’t call them entitlements). Yes, there are some people who take advantage – but the majority of those using these programs are doing so because its either get help, or go hungry.
Now, that being said – do the programs need overhauling – yes, most definitely. But should they be gotten rid of all together? I don’t think so. Not unless you change the rules to allow those in need of food to hunt and fish and gather without fees and other costs.
But, that would bypass the food safety system? Which could drive up Medicare costs for emergency room visits?
That could lead to poaching. That could errode the rights of property ownership for those who already ‘have’ food and water.
If these are concerns, I’ll urge to to decide what you want – make a decision on the kind of world you want to live in. There will always be those less fortunate, there will always be those who are just looking for the basics of food and shelter, and there will always be those who have more than enough to share, but don’t. Lack of Social Welfare programs increases crime rates, both drug related and violent. No, the social safety net doesn’t take crime to zero -that’s not realistic. What it does do is give people a leg up when things have turned sour. It makes sure that they can feed themselves and their families, and gives them less reason to even consider theft, drug peddling, flesh peddling, etc… just to get by.
Now, if you can see the points I’m making, then I ask this: how would you restructure social welfare systems in a way to correct the problems? In a way that allows (or even coerses) people to no longer need assistance? There are plenty of options, but none that all people can agree on – so how about a mix of ideaologies?
For example – I’m all for drug testing if you are getting assistance, be it monetary, food stamps, medicaid – if you are unable to support yourself and need assistance, there is no shame in that. But don’t expect to be living a high life (pun intended) on the state’s dime.
As for welfare, there is more than enough work to go around that needs to be done. Perhaps, if the private sector isn’t hiring enough, people using the social safety net could do something to ‘work’ for that assistance – some type of civil service.
Oh, that would be seen as ‘bigger gevernment’ in the eyes of some – and maybe it is. So again, I ask you to make a decision – if your argument against social welfare programs is that ‘they didn’t earn it, and taxpayers are giving them a free ride’, isn’t part of the solution to make people earn their keep? You cannot force private industry to hire people – but you can legislate Government to require that people who need assistance give something back to the community that is suporting them, where possible.
There are no perfect answers, and each new idea raises its own questions and concerns, but scrapping a system that keeps people fed and sheltered is no better an answer than jailing them, or letting them die, or dive into a life of Crime just to survive. But leaving the system the way it is seems just as unacceptable. Reasonable dialogue, as well as compromise, needs to start now, so we can find an answer.
