By Elliot Gaiser
There are only a few things that I would say are utterly terrifying to me. But something I just discovered suggests that one of those frightening prospects has shown its ugly mug. Brad Heath writes in USA TODAY on July 9, 2009, “Counties that supported Obama last year have reaped twice as much money per person from the administration’s $787 billion economic stimulus package as those that voted for his Republican rival, Sen. John McCain, a USA TODAY analysis of government disclosure and accounting records shows.”
So let’s get this straight. Counties that voted for Obama are getting twice the money as counties that voted for McCain? Outrageous! The first thing we might shout is “Corruption!” It seems like the whole blasted stimulus bill was rigged to dole out the moolah to those who made Obama president.
I hate to say it, but I wish that corruption was the only thing occurring here. Undoubtably, among the oceans of money sloshing through the bureaucracy some amount of political favoritism is likely. With nearly $800 billion being allocated, full accountability is virtually impossible. We have sadly come to expect that some special interests probably are paid off in most spending bills.
But I think there is something else here, far deeper and far more terrifying. While I can’t claim I know the full solution to this deeper issue, I have come to agree with American inventor Charles F. Kettering that “a problem well stated is a problem half solved.” So let’s take a stab at stating this problem.
Twice the amount of money went to counties that voted for Obama. Yet this was not simply a new “cash for votes” program to follow the “cash for clunkers” dole-out. Heath goes on to write that “from 2005 through 2007, the counties that later voted for Obama collected about 50% more government aid than those that supported McCain, according to spending reports from the U.S. Census Bureau.”
These Obama counties, which received a disproportionate amount of aid per person under the new package, have already had fatter, more steady pipelines of federal tax dollars pumping in the green stuff for several years.
And that is what is terrifying.
The stimulus money seems to have simply followed a well-worn path to regions of our nation that are already dependent on large federal handouts. The combined voting power of these areas was enough to outweigh the rest of the nation and give Obama and his like-minded allies in congress power to feed the disproportionate dependence on federal tax dollars, and at even higher levels than in previous years.
Now we’ve done it. We’ve fulfilled the solemn words attributed to Benjamin Franklin: “When the people find they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic.”
Those dependent on government aid now have enough votes to run the country. And they did, voting in a president and congress that have already increased the federal debt more than any of the last forty-three administrations. And much of that money has gone back to the people who voted those leaders in.
Already, according to the IRS in 2007, 25% of American taxpayers paid 85% of the taxes. The bottom 50%, probably located in poorer, often urban areas that are now receiving twice as much stimulus money, contributed only 3.2% of our nation’s tax revenue.
People paying for only 3% of government programs can vote in politicians who will spend the money of the minority on “stimulus” that will favor their regions. There is nothing the people in the 2,200 dissenting counties or the 25% minority can do to stop it by voting for low-tax, low-spending candidates like John McCain. They can simply be out-voted. They are nearly helpless politically.
But even that is just a symptom, I think. The problem is even deeper. I’ve already said it, though. It’s dependence.
Far too many Americans are dependent not on their own work ethic, ingenuity, or wisdom, but on government, and many no longer rely on their faith, family, or traditional virtue passed down through the generations when they have Uncle Sam. They rely on the drug of tax dollars, and it seems like as a nation the majority is quite comfortable with shooting up again and again on higher and higher doses of government spending.
Once these Americans are complacent with living a life addicted to the heroine of government housing, automaker take-overs, and welfare checks, they will tender their votes in ever-greater numbers to the big-brother drug-dealer –- or rather, the politicians who promise more spending to “stimulate” what is already the root of our economic problems.
Bear in mind that this is not a simple struggle between the rich and the poor, the haves and the have-nots. The entitlement mentality transcends income level. Wealthy Wall Street CEO’s that begged for bailouts and turned tax dollars into raises and bonuses are just as addicted to the drug as the family living on the taxpayer’s tab in the government projects. America’s drug addiction is rampant.
This drug is any government spending that redistributes wealth, that “robs Peter to pay Paul.”
It is Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid, which keep our elderly and poor dependent on the central government for income and health care, instead of on the families and communities of which they are a part.
It is federally-funded public education, free school lunch programs, and taxpayer-supported social workers, which keep our children dependent for knowledge, discipline, and even food on the national government, instead of on their parents and grandparents.
It is welfare checks, public housing, and insurance, bank, and automaker-takeovers which keep men and women reliant on others’ industry, instead of reliant on their own hard work and innovation to make a better life.
These programs were all started, and are now perpetuated, in the noble name of compassion, but they are anything but compassionate. This drug cuts the natural ties between families and communities, substituting the cold faceless machine of a vague bureaucracy for the warm traditional bonds that once cared for our downtrodden. This opiate robs charity of good will and altruism by impersonalizing what should be personal and by forcing what should be an act of free choice.
While this drug tries to alleviate suffering by numbing the pain of hard circumstances, it instead only dulls the nerves without stitching the wound, letting the cause of the pain fester with disease. It severs the consequence from the choice. If a homeowner buys a loan that he or she can’t pay back, it only alleviates the immediate consequence of foreclosure without remedying the irresponsibility on the part of both borrower and lender.
Allow me to provide a metaphor. In order for an airplane to fly, it must operate according to the four basic forces of flight: thrust, lift, drag, and gravity. These elements must balance to allow a wing to work, the engine providing thrust, the top of the wing creating lift, and the air and the earth providing drag and gravity, respectively. Without a balance of all four forces, an airplane would immediately spin out of control and crash.
If our society were an airplane, these spending programs take away the drag while leaving the thrust. They keep the lift but minimize the gravity. They give people the freedom to own a home without the responsibility of living within their means. The result is that our society begins to spin out of control. Unless these countervailing forces are restored, it will soon be dashed to pieces.
Where else can this dependence lead? What can our future look like when over half of the population benefits from the taxes levied on the hard work of the other half? Think about it. I have. And I’m concerned.
However, if we want our society to keep flying, if we hope to escape the terror of what Ben Franklin says will “herald the end of the republic,” if we want to eliminate our dependence on this drug, I believe we must strive to restore the equation of lift with gravity, thrust with drag.
We should once again remember that freedom requires responsibility just as lift and thrust must be countered with drag and gravity. We should recognize that dependence on the drug of government money usually seeks freedom without consequences. The disproportionate distribution of the stimulus money shows that those high on this drug have the power politically. And that’s terrifying.
The way out of this mess is a long, hard road that involves educating and convincing the dependent majority that true freedom, independence –- the liberty which comes with thrust and drag –- is worth the hard task of rehabilitation. But I believe that if Americans truly want to regain a free society, our nation has to kick the habit and work to eliminate our addiction to government intervention.
I would suggest two basic guidelines for reform. I believe we can start by electing leaders who will shift government’s focus to prioritize 1) our founders’ goal of fostering robust, diverse local communities to become the safety net instead of the mammoth central government, and 2) a broader national culture of virtue through these communities -– chiefly, virtues like tenacious self-reliance, courageous entrepreneurial risk-taking, and prudent long-term thinking –- that would eliminate the desire for public bailouts and government assistance. If these could become the two objectives of all our government programs, our tail-spinning society may begin to stabilize.
Unhitching the training wheels of tax dollars seems daunting, as were early attempts at manned flight. America’s dependence on government aid seems to afford a degree of security, like riding with the training wheels still on or staying grounded. But if we Americans wish to keep flying high, it seems that being willing to risk feeling consequences of our decisions without the numbing effect of government aid is our only hope.
I sincerely believe that if enough Americans choose, this may not be the end. Solving this problem could actually herald the beginning of a new flight of self-reliance, strong community, and independence for our American Republic.
