Looking for understanding


It’s becoming more and more problematic for me to countenance the whole liberal agenda, and even more problematic for me to fathom how their reasoning works.

Bearing in mind that I think they truly believe they think they have the needs of their fellow humans in mind, it’s just that every attempt to help is so short-sighted, and really accomplishes the opposite of intention.

I agree that everyone, at times, needs a helping hand. We’ve all been in a position where everything has felt out of control.

But forcing an entire population to pay for ideas that really are misguided, while going home feeling smug and self-congratulatory, isn’t helping, and certainly isn’t something to crow about.

And the defense of these programs can be pretty vicious, including calling naysayers anti-Christian, racist, anti-women, anti-children, etc., you’ve heard those kinds of things, I’m sure.

The one argument that has had me most fascinated was the one where the anti-Christian crowd had the audacity to use the Bible as a basis for defense of welfare programs. The hypocrisy of a group of people largely responsible for the removal of prayer from schools, the Decalogue from county courthouse lawns and any mention of deities (except for Allah, for some reason) lecturing Christians on proper Christian behavior is jaw-dropping, to say the least.

But here, as with most liberal programs, is where I ask the questions I always ask when the government is involved:

What’s the end game?

Why is the government the only entity capable of administering social aid programs?

Taking the last question first, it could be said that the government has the capability to build infrastructure quickly, and administer the program in a fair manner, since it really doesn’t have a dog in the fight.

But that argument flies in the face of the Constitution, which, other than saying in its preamble and the taxing and spending clause about providing for the general welfare, doesn’t grant specifically the right to administer welfare programs — and that includes things like Medicaid, Medicare, and the Affordable Care Act.

There can be really wild interpretations of what general welfare means, but in and of itself, that while these programs are available to everyone, only the people that qualify can make use of them. To my mind, that doesn’t really qualify as general, but is really targeted at a specific body of people.

During the debates for the ACA, in fact, the thing most discussed was the 30 million citizens who did not have medical insurance. That, then, was the target, and that is not general; it’s 1/10 of the population of the country, which is a pretty specific number.

And then, what happens after that? Do we suppose that there’s no chance of ever getting out from under this program once you’ve enrolled? Then is that what we do now, enroll people into government programs for life?

Which is why I ask the other question. How do we transition the people we help into becoming self-sufficient?

I suspect the answer is we don’t, because once you’ve joined, you’ve joined for life.

And I can’t live with a government that looks to entrap me like that. We need real change.