“The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people’s money.”
Serfdom – a member of a servile feudal class bound to the land and subject to the will of its owner – Merriam-Webster
We are on the Obama Road to serfdom. This road will lead us to socialism – which will hand our future to the State, and thus to servitude. This servitude will be exemplified in the State’s attempt to solve the problem of poverty and the caring for our poor.
Barack Obama and the Secular Progressives believe themselves as the elites, and they in turn exalt the State as the savior of mankind. This is the radical left, and they insist that all must capitulate to the will of the State. But they have a problem. There are folks who will relinquish their personal freedoms to become serfs to the State – but most people will not. Poor Seculars – what are they to do?
The Seculars realize the importance of recruiting as many people as possible to depend on the government for some type of assistance. Whether Social Security, healthcare, education, welfare, and the like. The poor in their need are easy pickings. In order to understand all of this, we must realize the issue for the Seculars is not the solution to poverty. The issue is dependence on the State.
Socialism is a failure. Liberalism is a failure. Progressivism is just liberalism progressively worse. Trickle down government is never the solution. Government programs will never solve the issue of poverty – government programs rarely solve any problem. The problem with the State in trying to solve problems is that it becomes full of itself. It creates a bloated bureaucracy, it’s very impersonal, runs itself in a very inefficient way, wastes money, and because it’s always political – politicians must always profit by it.
President Johnson’s Great War on Poverty will illustrate this point. Intended to eliminate poverty, Johnson stated, “the war on poverty is not a struggle simply to support people, to make them dependent on the generosity of others.” Instead, the plan was to give the poor the behavioral skills and values necessary to escape from both poverty and dependence. Johnson sought to address the “the causes, not just the consequences of poverty.” (1)
Unfortunately, Johnson’s intentions were never realized. The War on Poverty became an Industry of Poverty, bent on self preservation by creating a whole new dependent class. More than thirty years ago, then President Jimmy Carter stated, “the welfare system is anti-work, anti-family, inequitable in its treatment of the poor and wasteful of the taxpayers’ dollars.” (2)
What is the single most significant contribution of the Democratically controlled House, during the 30 years after the inauguration of the War of Poverty? The creation of a brand new group in America, a dependant class trapped in generational welfare. Instead of solving the problem of poverty, it institutionalized it.
While the perception is that liberalism/progressivism is compassionate to those in need, it actually is the greatest detriment to the solution of poverty. Take education as an example. We know that education is an essential step out of poverty. Parents who have children attending failing Public Schools, know their kids are at a great disadvantage. But instead of fostering competition through vouchers to open up the reality of a good education, liberals/progressives oppose them.
Why? One reason is special interests of the teacher unions. Another reason is that the public schools are the clearing house for relativistic secularism. The State must control the thinking of our children. So, instead of freedom of choice in education for the poor to conquer poverty – liberals/progressives will limit their choices, simply because they know better.
But how do we help those in need out of poverty? The solution will never come from trickle down government – it must come through the grass roots where the poor are, and then proceed to the top. There must be a cooperation between local Churches, charitable organizations and education, (where the people are), business (where jobs are created), and then the Government (to provide assurance that help is given without discrimination).
1) The emphasis should be on personal responsibility and independence from the State. Help must come to those in need, to provide a safety net: but it must not simply be a hand out, but a hand up out of poverty. The old approach to poverty encouraged dependence. One of the significant steps toward this was welfare reform. “The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996, which replaced the failed social program known as Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC), with a new program called Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF). The reform legislation had three goals: to reduce welfare dependence and increase employment; to reduce child poverty; and to reduce illegitimacy and strengthen marriage.”
One of the keys of this legislation is the requirement of 30 hrs of work or looking for work, without losing medical benefits. Under the old system, if one became employed – state medical benefits were lost. This would give incentive to stay on welfare, instead of leading a person to self reliance.
What were the results? Welfare caseloads have been cut nearly in half, and employment of the most disadvantaged single mothers has increased from 50 percent to 100 percent. The explosive growth of out-of-wedlock childbearing came to a virtual halt. The share of children living in single-mother families has fallen, and the share living in married-couple families has increased, especially among black families. (3)
2) In order to give our children tools for success, we must have freedom in educational choices. Instead of attending failing schools, competition must be fostered through the development of charter schools and vouchers. Open enrollment should be allowed in all public schools, so that children are not limited by the district they happen to reside.
3) The White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives founded by President Bush, is a good start in harnessing the full participation of faith-based organizations to help the poor. It was designed to prevent discrimination against them, protect the religious freedom of beneficiaries, and preserve religious hiring rights of faith-based charities.
We need to encourage more participation, uninhibited by government control in religious hiring rights of faith-based charities.
4) Business and free markets must be unshackled by high corporate taxes so that it may reinvest and create more jobs. Our free market economy creates more jobs at a much lower price than Socialism creating jobs through the State.
5) We must promote the greatest solution to poverty – the family! A loving and stable marriage is the greatest gift that you can give to your children. The instillation of religious faith, the provision of love and discipline, the teaching of what is right and wrong, modeling a strong work ethic, and the development of integrity and character – will give children advantages that money can never buy.
Conversely, eighty percent of those in poverty are single parents and children from single parent homes. Divorce and having children while not married, are the biggest steps into poverty. How do we avoid poverty? If you are going to have children – get married, and stay married. (Let me take a moment to assure everyone that the intention here is not to judge divorced folks and single moms! Please understand that the intention is to encourage marriage and family).
The solution to poverty has little to do with government programs, but it has everything to do with strengthening the family, increase educational opportunities, freeing business and the free markets to do what they do best by creating jobs, enable churches and private charities to reach the poor “where they are at,” and continual reforming of welfare to be a “hand up” from poverty.
The Stimulus Package has never been about stimulating the economy, it’s been all about creating a Socialist government. It has abandoned Welfare Reform, with a massive permanent expansion of the welfare state. It is a big step in nationalized healthcare, and the actual jobs it does produce are government jobs – more people who depend on the State.
The coming of Obamaworld, means the coming of Socialism and the failure that accompanies it. The issue is not solving the problem of poverty, but the development of a dependent class to insure votes. If it can get as many people as possible dependent on government programs, it succeeds in making them serfs: subject to the will of its owner – the State.
1) Means-Tested Welfare Spending: Past and Future Growth by Robert E. Rector March 7, 2001
(2) Quoted in Roger A. Freeman, Does America Neglect Its Poor? (Stanford, Cal.: The Hoover Institution, 1987), p. 12.
(3) The Continuing Good News About Welfare Reform by Robert Rector and Patrick F. Fagan February 6, 2003
© Jim Blazsik 2009 Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this blog’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited.