Government Isn't The Only Answer To Helping Needy Ge... »
Posted By RTHTGakaRoland 3 months ago in Political Opinion
Assisting the needy in health care is a "moral imperative" — not a constitutional right. The two are as different as a squirt gun and an Uzi.
If something is not permitted under our Constitution, the federal government simply cannot do it. Period.
The Founding Fathers vigorously debated the role of the federal government and defined it in Article I, Section 8 — spelling out the specific duties and obligations of the federal government.
Most notably, these included providing a military for national security, coining money, establishing rules for immigration and citizenship, establishing rules for bankruptcy, setting up a postal system, establishing trademark and copyright rules, and setting up a legal system to resolve disputes.
Charity is not there.
James Madison — a Founding Father and principal author of the Constitution — wrote:
"I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution, which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents."
And consider government welfare's effect on people's willingness to give. During the Great Depression — before the social programs that today we accept as givens (Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid) — charitable giving increased dramatically.
After FDR began signing social programs into law, charitable giving continued, but not at the same rate. People felt that they had given at the office and/or that government was handling it.
Government "charity" is simply less efficient than private charity. Every dollar extracted from taxpayers, sent to Washington and then routed to the beneficiary loses about 70 cents in transfer costs — salaries, rent and other expenses.
The Salvation Army, by contrast, spends 2 cents in operating costs, with the remainder going to fundraising and the beneficiary.
What about the issue of moral hazard? Does government welfare distort behavior and cause people to act irresponsibly?
In 1964, President Lyndon Johnson launched a War on Poverty. Anti-poverty workers went door-to-door to inform women of their "right" to money and services — provided the recipients were unmarried and had no men living in their houses.
Out-of-wedlock births skyrocketed. In 1960, before the War on Poverty, out-of-wedlock births accounted for 2% of white births and 22% of black births. By 1994 — just three decades after Johnson began his "war" — the rates had soared to 25% and 70%, respectively.
Numerous studies conclude that children of broken homes with absentee or nonexistent fathers are likelier to commit crimes, drop out of school, do drugs and produce out-of-wedlock children.
Absent (unconstitutional) government programs, individuals and charitable organizations can, will and — in many cases — already do provide services to the needy. A limited government — one that taxes only to fulfill its permissible duties — would allow even more disposable time and money.
People-to-people charity is more efficient, less costly, more humane and compassionate, and more likely to inspire change and self-sufficiency in the beneficiary. People can and would readily satisfy society's "moral imperative."
Read Full Story at ibdeditorials.com »
223 Views Share Story 14 Comments Report
Submitted By:
RTHTGakaRoland
“…man is not free unless government is limited. There's a clear cause and effect here that is as neat and predictable as a law ...
Who Also Submitted:
RSS Join the Discussion
+ Add CommentComments So Far: 14 (view all)
-
55%
Striker1013 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"moral imperative"?
Reply
Since when has Force been moral?
Since when has stealing your money for redistribution been "moral"?
Since when has "need" been elevated above Reason and Competence?
And therein lies the problem.
That's why I live in Galt's Gulch. -
63%
hyperbola3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Ah my how the right-wingers try to put words in the mouths of our founding fathers.
Reply
Somehow they always forget to mention the founding fathers who wanted a 100% inheritance tax - so that every generation would start equally. AND, so that there would never be an entrenched, corrupt oligarchy in America. They were well aware of the perverse effects of corrupt aristocracies and of the need to prevent the arisal of such a class in the US.-
60%
hyperbola3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
In a speech on April 14, 1906, President Theodore Roosevelt endorsed a progressive estate tax:
Reply
It is important to this people to grapple with the problems connected with the amassing of enormous fortunes, and the use of those fortunes, both corporate and individual, in business. We should discriminate in the sharpest way between fortunes well-won and fortunes ill-won; between those gained as an incident to performing great services to the community as a whole, and those gained in evil fashion by keeping just within the limits of mere law-honesty.
Of course no amount of charity in spending such fortunes in any way compensates for misconduct in making them. As a matter of personal conviction, and without pretending to discuss the details or formulate the system, I feel that we shall ultimately have to consider the adoption of some such scheme as that of a progressive tax on all fortunes, beyond a certain amount either given in life or devised or bequeathed upon death to any individual — a tax so framed as to put it out of the power of the owner of one of these enormous fortunes to hand on more than a certain amount to any one individual; the tax, of course, to be imposed by the National and not the State Government.
Such taxation should, of course, be aimed merely at the inheritance or transmission in their entirety of those fortunes swollen beyond all healthy limits. ....
http://www.tax.org/Museum/1901-1932.htm -
67%
hyperbola3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
What is of course quite curious is how easily so many right-wingers are made to spout the slogans that empower and entrench a corrupt oligarchy. They seem to prefer to attack those worse off than themselves rather than root out the corruption.
Reply
We really do need another Teddy Roosevelt - who busted all the monopolies and corrupt oligarchs when they got as abusive a centruy ago as they are today. -
100%
fjgalt2 months, 4 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
It's understandable that our forefathers were worried about the continuing accumulation of wealth as they saw examples of this in Europe. However, such confiscation of someone's wealth ran contrary to the American ideals of Liberty so inheritance taxes were not instituted.
Reply
Reality has shown that inheritance taxes actually work to keep those on top to stay on top. Inheritance taxes prevent the accumulation of wealth by the middle classes. It's like a high stakes poker game.
So, while during the mostly capitalist 19th century, it was common for families to go from "rags to riches to rags in three generations," during the 20th century with inheritance taxes, families like the Rockefellers and Kennedys continued to remain the economic elite.
-
-
60%
moxxxxxxxxxx3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
We cannot expect charitable organizations to support the needy. These organizations have their own missions, values, and goals. Likewise, the government cannot make people give to charities. Forcing the needy to survive on the giving of others reduces them to beggars. The American majority has a mature level of moral development and does not promote demeaning the needy to beggar status. America moves forwards not backwards.
Reply-
50%
chuck-the-canuck2 months, 4 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"America moves forwards not backwards." Were that really true and not just another example of wishful thinking and ill founded hubris. If conservative right-wing America had its way, tomorrow would be just like yesterday. Plantation owners would still have slaves and gays would be ostracized. America needs to dragged kicking and screaming into the twenty-first century. The future isn't all about the gadgets. It is also about enlightenment and a realization about the true nature of the brotherhood of man.
Reply
-
-
Submit a Story
Advertisement
Add a Comment
Sign In With Your Propeller Account
Please keep your comments relevant to this story.
To create a live link, simply type the URL (including http://) or email address and we will make it a live link for you. You can put up to 3 URLs in your comments. Line breaks and paragraphs are automatically converted — no need to use <p> or <br /> tags.