Those who regard government “entitlement” programs as sacrosanct, and regard those who want to cut them back as calloused or cruel, picture a world very different from the world of reality.
To listen to some of the defenders of entitlement programs, which are at the heart of the present financial crisis, you might think that anything the government fails to provide is something that people will be deprived of.
Advertisement
In other words, if you cut spending on school lunches, children will go hungry. If you fail to subsidize housing, people will be homeless. If you fail to subsidize prescription drugs, old people will have to eat dog food in order to be able to afford their meds.
This is the vision promoted by many politicians and by much of the media. But, in the world of reality, it is not even true for most people who are living below the official poverty line.
Most Americans living below the official poverty line own a car or truck — and government entitlement programs seldom provide cars and trucks. Most people living below the official poverty line also have air conditioning, color television, and a microwave oven — and these too are not usually handed out by government entitlement programs.
Cell phones and other electronic devices are by no means unheard of in low-income neighborhoods, where children would supposedly go hungry if there were no school-lunch programs. In reality, low-income people are overweight more often than other Americans.
As for housing and homelessness, housing prices are higher and homelessness is a bigger problem in places where there has been massive government intervention, such as in liberal bastions New York City and San Francisco. As for the elderly, 80 percent are homeowners, whose monthly housing costs are less than $400, including property taxes, utilities, and maintenance.
The desperately poor elderly conjured up in political and media rhetoric are — in the world of reality — the wealthiest segment of the American population. The average wealth of older households is nearly three times the wealth of households headed by people in the 35- to 44-year-old bracket, and more than 15 times the wealth of households headed by someone under 35 years of age.
If the wealthiest segment of the population cannot pay their own medical bills, who can? The country as a whole is not any richer because the government pays our medical bills — with money that it takes from us.
What about the truly poor, in whatever age brackets? First of all, even in low-income and high-crime neighborhoods, people are not stealing bread to feed their children. The fraction of the people in such neighborhoods who commit most of the crimes are far more likely to steal luxury products that they can either use or sell to get money to support their parasitic lifestyle.
As for the rest of the poor, Prof. Walter Williams of George Mason University long ago showed that you could give the poor enough money to lift them all above the official poverty line for a fraction of what it costs to support a massive welfare-state bureaucracy.
We don’t need to send the country into bankruptcy — in the name of the poor — by spending trillions of dollars on people who are not poor and who could take care of themselves. The poor have been used as human shields behind which the expanding welfare state has advanced.
The goal is not to keep the poor from starving but to create dependency — because dependency translates into votes for politicians who play Santa Claus.
We have all heard the old saying about how giving a man a fish feeds him for a day, while teaching him to fish feeds him for a lifetime. Independence makes for a healthier society, but dependency is what gets votes for politicians.
For politicians, giving a man a fish every day of his life is the way to keep getting his vote. “Entitlement” is just a fancy word for dependency.
As for the scary stories politicians tell, in order to keep the entitlement programs going, as long as we keep buying it, they will keep selling it.
Your piece is sure to generate disgust and condemnation from the usual and predictable lib-progressive redistribute the wealth "moral monsters" who visit NRO...can't wait to read 'em as they're such fun!!!
Every new "entitlement" gradually erodes the historic American cultural imperative of self-sufficiency.
Are we stronger, as a society, when we have and encourage individuals to take care of themselves or when we encourage dependency? The answer is all too obvious. Human nature being what it is, the more people become more accustomed to relinquishing personal responsibilities to "the government" the further that trend will progress.
Were I a communist I'd be delighted with this dynamic. Its a cynical process, yes, but if your ends are complete collectivism it is a beautifully effective and reliable process.
One only needs to consider my birthplace, Detroit. The city just spent $50 million on main-library renovations (including $150,000 for 16 artistic chairs). The average teacher’s average salary is $80,000. Yet 47% of city is functionally illiterate. This city is a virtual ghost town with >50% of its homes/lots vacant and an entire population dependent on the government dole.
50 years of liberal democratic leadership and their perpetual handouts have destroyed what used to be one of America’s largest and most vibrant cities.
I guess functional illiteracy means Detroiters can still recognize the letter ‘D’, so they can vote the all democratic ballot and continue the good times.
If I may add, Mr. Sowell is a national treasure. Only Winston Churchill was as capable of delivering so much message, in so few words.
Dependency happens with charities, not just government. Try cutting back on a soup kitchen because the donations don't bring in enough, and people complain that they didn't get their roll or piece of fruit or vegetarian entree.
It seems like welfare would be more effective if people who are on the dole were kept hungry so they retain motivation to seek a better life through their own efforts. Otherwise, the hunter/gatherer nature takes over and they treat the handouts as successful foraging, and live on that.
Actually, Tim, it's because limousine liberals are so afraid to get out of their cars and go talk to actual poor people that they keep throwig (our) money out of their passing motorcades to the poor because they don't understand what causes the ruts that lead to continuous poverty. That was Dr. Sowell's point.
Try running on the promise to end Social Security with no more contributions into it and no more distributions out of it. It just seems like it will always lose. People could get a much better return on a retirement investment on the S and P 500, but they still seem to prefer the handout. The government breaks my legs and then gives me a pair of crutches and says "See if it wasn't for us you would not be able to walk!"
I remember someone (Gertude Himmelfarb?) writing about the Victorian approach to the poor. They felt someone on relief should not be more prosperous than the working poor in order to avoid what rimfrel points out. Keep people from starving/dying but don't make the safety net into a hammock.
I've worked in foodservice for 13 years and noticed an interesting trend. Of course I've dealt with more complaints than i'd ever want to recall, but can you guess who complains most readily, the most indignantly, and with the most sense of entitlement?
People with coupons. The bigger the discount, the worse it gets. Give them a (literal) free lunch and you can just plan on them hating it and not tipping.
All of which is just anecdotal support for the broader truth that giving people free stuff just leads them to expect more free stuff.
Far too long government has been dripping in corruption. Our laws have always been an instrument of injustice. Common and simple people have carried out the injustices of government. When would I see the fruits of my labor while leisure obtains it all?
