It is no secret that I enjoy old westerns, with Gunsmoke being the frontrunner for favorite. For those who have never seen it, it is set in 1890s Dodge City, Kansas. While the stories center around U.S. Marshal Matt Dillon, much is about the people attempting to live in a semi-arid state where many were often called “dirt farmers” because they were trying to eke out a living from often inhospitable land. If you watch enough episodes, you will see several times over individuals barely scraping by, often not able to provide enough for themselves or their families. Kinfolk would occasionally offer assistance, and even Marshal Dillon at least once or twice provided help out of his own pocket. Why didn’t these people just go down to the welfare office and claim a need? Why didn’t they go get food stamps or apply for social security benefits? Where was government to step in during these hard times? No where! Why? Because it is not the government’s responsibility, nor is it within the government’s purview.
The founders believed in private property ownership and personal responsibility. They did not believe in government providing for the masses because they knew government would not have, nor could it raise, the resources to do so. If they had concern that maintaining a standing army would be too much of a financial burden, how could they ever have considered welfare for the masses? They didn’t. Unfortunately, the populace has been brainwashed into believing government should provide for those in need.
Many in government have taken a misunderstanding of the “general welfare” clause in the Constitution, and twisted it to the progressive proverb that states, “government should do for the people what the people are unable to do for themselves.” This is little more than a socialist cliche. I am not about to launch into a tirade about those in government being socialists - no one (yet) is truly (or overtly) advocating for public (read: government) ownership of the means of production.
There is no way the founders could have or would have endorsed the modern welfare state. Madison himself wrote in the Federalist No. 45:
The powers delegated by the proposed constitution to the federal government, are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the state governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negociation (sic), and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will for the most part be connected. The powers reserved to the several states will extend to all the objects, which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties and properties of the people; and the internal order, improvement and prosperity of the state.
Where, in there, is welfare as most understand it today? It is not, at least not with regard to the federal government, because those who authored the Constitution did not believe the government existed to provide for those who couldn’t provide for themselves. If property was to be private, so was reliance and responsibility - it is incumbent upon individuals to care for themselves and those around them. As the country grew and aged, however, people’s thinking gradually began to change.
Woodrow Wilson ushered in the Underwood Tariff Act, shortly after Congress had passed the Sixteenth Amendment, which reduced “levies on manufactured and semi-manufactured goods and to eliminate duties on most raw materials,” and replaced that revenue via a graduated income tax. Thus, Wilson violated the principle conveyed in Jefferson’s First Inaugural Address, in which he said:
Still one thing more, fellow citizens, a wise and frugal government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government; and this is necessary to close the circle of our felicities.
FDR and Truman came in with social programs of their own, like the Social Security Administration - the largest ponzi scheme ever instituted among men. Social Security is regularly robbed in order to fund other projects or pay those who should not receive Social Security. Perhaps the worst was Lyndon Johnson’s “Great Society,” a debacle from which America continues to reel. He created a welfare system from which few ever escape, if they even try. More people have come to rely on government for their income since Johnson’s programs than ever in American history. The problem with all of this is, aside from the lack of Constitutional authority for the federal government to fund and manage these programs, is that the government cannot tax productive people enough to provide all the support necessary for those who aren’t productive.
The more people depend upon the state, the more liberty must be encroached. First, earners are forced to give up that which they earn in order to give to someone else (this is, under normal circumstances, called “theft”); and second, those receiving the ill-gotten gain become dependent upon government. In both cases, the government gains more power over the populace. One cannot depend on government for sustenance and expect not to be used and controlled by government. Likewise, one cannot be the provider of the sustenance government gives others without having your rights (like that of “private property ownership”) impacted.
Government is currently providing for over 65 million Americans (that is almost 20% of the population), and (at least) 11 million illegal immigrants (just stop with the undocumented crap - they have entered the country illegally and are therefore criminals who are being financially supported by government at the expense of American citizens). The system can only sustain so much. And with each new welfare dependent, government must take more from those who are not on welfare, and both the giver and the taker become that much more liable to the government. It is a vicious cycle and one government seems intent on continuing in a steroid-boosted Cloward-Piven frenzy.
The more government provides, the more liberty all citizens are forced to sacrifice. It is a zero sum game in which the people’s loss (and all people in this scenario are losing) is government’s gain. If we are to remain a free and prosperous people, the game must end, and the people need to learn to “regulate their own pursuits,” because we have neither a wise nor a frugal government.
You are right in that there are issues with being a beneficiary of the government largess. However, when you have indoctrinated people over generations to believe in the system, it is hard to open eyes and harder to actually not take what the government offers.
The most blatant is Socialist Security, and yes I did spell that as “Socialist” by intent. How often have you heard some form of I paid into it and only getting what is due. HOGWASH! It is intergenerational theft. It is the older generation forcing the younger to pay them.
The analogy I use is if I hire a thug to steal your car, does that give you the right to hire the same thug to steal someone else’s car? If you answer yes, you are probably on Socialist Security.
Socialist Security also breaks down the intergenerational family. You have no need to take care of grandma as the state will do it for you. If you believe the Bible is true, then read 1st Timothy 5 and shudder.
The idea is also now seeded that once you are older, you no longer have to work and are put out to pasture. Again the Bible instructs the elders, as in those who are older, to mature and then proclaim, but not impose, wise guidance.
Consider the example know as Rehoboam’s Folly in 1st Kings 12. Rehoboam sought counsel from both the young and the old. He took the advice of the young and lost most of his kingdom. Our young leadership in the US will do the same.
With Matthew 23:3 in mind, “For they preach, but do not practice”, allow me to demonstrate I practice what I preach. Consider http://Kozlowski.org/Social_Security. I am about to turn 68 and have fully qualified for Socialist Security for 3 years. I could have received over $100,000 in so called “benefits” by now. I have not applied for it and therefore received nothing. Why? Exodus 20:15 “You shall not steal.”
In her former job prior to retirement, my wife worked with clients who received Medicare / Medicaid as their only means of survival. She saw multiple cases of three generations living in the same household with no thought of becoming self-sufficient through employment. They could not conceive of a life of freedom and independence; the Gummit had become their protector and sustainer.