She’s Right on Helping the Poor

Okay, I took a short break from my energy conservation to turn on the computer and give you the next installment of “Five Reasons for Liberals to Hate Me,” as I have decided to name this week’s series.

Grab a She’s Right and dig in. Today’s piece: “She’s Right on Helping the Poor.” Of course, you probably already read that in the title.

The third survey question was: “What is the “She’s Right” view on helping the poor?”

The choices were: She supports a broad social safety net; She thinks the payment for these programs should come from income tax, with the super-wealthy paying the bulk of it; She thinks that the government was not meant to take money from one individual and give it to another; She believes that people will support private charities if the government does not provide welfare programs; She believes that everyone should give their time and/or money to help those in need, but the government should not force them to.

One person came in from outer space and incorrectly guessed that I support a broad social safety net. No, I don’t. I think that we need programs that help people who are in a bad way to get back on their feet, but I do not support the type of far-reaching welfare programs we have now.

In his/her defense, neither he/she nor anyone else believed that I would ever suggest a tax on the rich to pay for it, which is good because I would have banned from my blog anyone who chose that answer!

Three smart people said I think that the government was not meant to take money from one individual and give it to another. Why more people did not know that perplexes me, but also tells me that I need to focus more posts on this area.

Let me restate that, the government was not meant to take money from one individual and give it to another. In fact, I hope to do a post soon about James Madison’s veto of the bill that would have provided federal money “for constructing roads and canals” under the guise of facilitating interstate commerce. Madison felt that this was outside of the scope of the powers given to the federal government. See as the “Father of the Constitution,” Madison knew a thing or two about the original intent. I can only imagine what he would have to say about the current welfare state.

Of course I only say that because I am some rich trust-fund baby who looks down on poor people.

Or perhaps I am really just a stay-at-home mom struggling to make ends meet on my husband’s small salary, but who believes that people will support private charities if the government does not provide welfare programs. Yeah, it’s that last one and five people who took the survey knew that, too.

Eight loyal She’s Right readers said that I believe that everyone should give their time and/or money to help those in need, but the government should not force them to. That is correct.

Maybe I am naïve, but I believe that people are generally caring, or at least enough are that we would have enough help out there for those who truly need it should the government ever get out of the caretaker business.

The problem with the government holding that role is that (1) it gives it too much power and control over the people it serves, (2) it uses that power to take money that it has no rightful claim to from the people who legitimately earned it, and (3) it creates programs that may or may not actually address the need of the people they serve because the people who develop the programs are far removed from the people using them.

We would be far better served as a society to have privately-run charitable programs closer to the people they serve, run on funds voluntarily contributed and caring neighbors willing to volunteer their time.

This would help keep the government’s power limited to areas enumerated in the Constitution, giving us all more freedom, and make us more accountable to each other on a local level, where those giving would know those receiving.