Behind every vote for a liberal candidate there is a sense of guilt: that we well-off Americans throughout our history have left behind the poor, the “disadvantaged,” the “underprivileged.” Our road to prosperity was somehow paved at the expense of the “less fortunate.” Had they not suffered, we few lucky ones would not be where we are. We owe something to “society.” Barely concealed in this guilt-mongering on the part of politicians and penance on the part of the American people is the issue of race, the issue that never goes away. Those poor kids in the inner city must be helped because we, somehow, put them there.
The New Deal, the Fair Deal, the Great Society, the War on Poverty, and every other progressive social program, while doing nothing to relieve the blight of the cities of America, did accomplish their hidden goal: to extend a helping hand to people who didn’t need it—and to make their children unable to live without it. The New Welfare State of the twenty-first century is not exclusively, and perhaps not even predominantly, black or urban. It is white. It is rural. It has taken over the small towns. It is creeping even into suburban neighborhoods. It may be living—in one form or another—next door to you.
Here is how it works. When my wife and I moved from Colorado to the Midwest, we were in need of a babysitter. My wife quite naturally relied upon a young woman fresh out of high school who worked in the child watch at the local Y where my wife works out every morning. After coming home one night from a dinner date, my wife (while I went to bed) spent a long time talking to this young woman. She had ambitions of opening up her own child care service of some kind and was looking into certification programs in that field. My wife applauded the girl’s (for that is what she is) plans and gave her one direct piece of advice: the secret to a happy life is not getting pregnant until you have a husband.
A few months later at the Y, the girl broke the news to my wife: “I’m pregnant.” There was no reference to or hint of the previous conversation about career goals. My wife asked whether the girl would be getting married soon. “No,” came the answer, without a blush. She was not sure whether she and her boyfriend would stay together.
“Well, how are you going to support the baby? You know, medical costs are high these days, and even with my husband’s insurance we still have a lot of expenses.”
“Oh, it’s no big deal. I’ll probably go on WIC.”
So that’s it. No shame. No sense of remorse. What is more important, no sense of real responsibility. By the time the baby came, the girl had indeed broken up with her boyfriend, who had found another girl. And the new mother was working on getting a new boyfriend—a fling which didn’t last.
Now the guilt-mongering progressive politician wants us to think about the baby and how unfortunate it is to be born without a father and in relatively poor circumstances, though the mother has a job. What the progressive politician does not want us to think about is the free will that brought a child into the world in a way that guaranteed that child would grow up in relative poverty—and therefore be in need of “assistance.”
But consider my wife’s relatively fortunate circumstances. She grew up in exactly that girl’s shoes. She came from a small town in the Midwest. Her folks were not rich. But: She studied hard. She got a scholarship to college. She got married. She worked and saved money. She waited to have children until her husband could afford to support her staying at home. She followed the steps of what used to be the not-so-hidden secret of a happy life. And now who will pay for the medical care of this woman’s child—and the formula, which is more expensive than what Nature provides? Who pays for the pre-K “learning center” in our town that this child will likely attend—that we are told is “so good” for kids—serving only “underprivileged” children while their mothers work full-time? The list of transfer payments could go on.
Every instance of “relief” this child receives will in a very real way compete with the things we can give our children. As so-called “middle-class” parents, we economize and make choices every day about the things we give to our children. There is no aid for our oldest son who is being home-schooled, though the tax base in our town suggests that we are paying far more than our “fair share” for the public schools that fail to teach children to read (and teenagers to be abstinent!). It is not only a question of justice. We feel for the child who will be brought up in modest circumstances, but more importantly, without a father. A little restraint on the part of these post-adolescents playing at being grow-ups would have meant opportunity and a true family for the child.
The purpose of the Old Welfare State was ostensibly helping the poor. The New Welfare State is in the business of making more poor to help. The Old Welfare State exhausted the cities long ago. The New Welfare State has moved out to the country. Go to any Wal-Mart in the small-town Midwest, and you will see the grandchildren of farmers buying meat and potatoes (but mostly in the form of potato chips) with food stamps. Men in their twenties sit idly in the public parks at two in the afternoon. (Hint: the men are not on vacation, and their preferred beverage is not the latest protein drink.) Girls regularly get pregnant in or just out of high school—rarely with the intent to marry. The word “qualify”—which used to signal moving up in the world—has taken on a whole new meaning. There is a race to the bottom to qualify for this or that state or federal handout. Yet all this is counted a victory for some. New mouths to feed grow the Nanny State. New mouths to feed translate to more votes for the Democrats. And hardly a Republican dares to question the change.
The New Welfare State makes plain the hidden reality of the Old Welfare State. So-called welfare is a matter of choice, not of necessity. It begins with the surrender of the old-fashioned idea of personal responsibility. And the face of the New Welfare State is the pregnant girl—or her heedless baby-daddy moving on to impregnate the next teenage girl—who looks just like you did a few years ago, albeit expecting, demanding a relief check that you are providing, unwilling to take your advice about responsible living, and with no inclination to offer so much as a thank-you.
- Comment (46)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (5)
Comments:
May '10
Re: Free, White, Under Twenty-One . . . And on the Dole: A Portrait of the New Welfare State
Best wishes for success homeschooling your children. My wife (mainly) and I homeschooled our 5 children k-13 during which period we were priviliged to pay nearly $100,000 in school taxes, while saving the state somewhere between $500,000-$750,000 (depending on how you figure it, a lot of money).
The government schools are such a tangled mess that only delinking funding from provision (vouchers in other words) is going to even come close to fixing the problem of children graduating from high school unable to read their diploma.
Re: Free, White, Under Twenty-One . . . And on the Dole: A Portrait of the New Welfare State
"The New Welfare State is in the business of making more poor to help." That's it: The Welfare State in a nutshell.
Welcome to Ricochet, Terrence.
Re: Free, White, Under Twenty-One . . . And on the Dole: A Portrait of the New Welfare State
Nov '10
Re: Free, White, Under Twenty-One . . . And on the Dole: A Portrait of the New Welfare State
Here I was enjoying a leisurely Sunday morning cup of coffee, revelling in the self-determined pace of retirement and the seclusion of country living, when you reminded me of why I dread going to town later in the day.
Your observations are spot on. I grew up in rural Missouri and witnessed welfare in our country morph from a distant urban phenomenon to a shameless way of life for the next three people in front of me at the grocery store check-out. I remember as a child when the poor in our area would come to the loading dock of an abandoned railway station to receive their weekly allotment of "commodities"--very basic foodstuffs. I might be confabulating, but those recipients seemed ashamed to be there and eager to leave before too many neighbors saw them.
When I started in law enforcement in the late 70's there still existed an older generation who shook their heads at the sloth of their children and grandchildren. By the time I left in 2006, that generation had been replaced by one that was skilled at nothing other than navigating the state and federal programs that gave them free stuff.
Re: Free, White, Under Twenty-One . . . And on the Dole: A Portrait of the New Welfare State
To put flesh on this argument, consider this -- that, back in 1962, when Daniel Patrick Moynihan was writing the Moynihan Report, which identified black bastardy as a major social program, the white bastard rate was 2%. Today, the over-all bastard rate is 40%. Two-fifths of all children born in this country are in the situation of the child of the Moore family babysitter.
Dec '10
Re: Free, White, Under Twenty-One . . . And on the Dole: A Portrait of the New Welfare State
For many people (those who most support these lavish giveaways) it's still distant. I don't think they use too many food stamps at Whole Foods.
But as the London riots show, welfare just creates a poverty of the soul.
Re: Free, White, Under Twenty-One . . . And on the Dole: A Portrait of the New Welfare State
Welcome to Ricochet, Terence, and you had me at your first declarative clause: "Behind every vote for a liberal candidate there is a sense of guilt."
Apr '11
Re: Free, White, Under Twenty-One . . . And on the Dole: A Portrait of the New Welfare State
I'm a married 24-year-old working homeowner whose wife just recently had our first baby. My wife and I, like Terrence O. Moore and his wife, made what we believe to be a wise choice, and waited to have a child until after we could afford it on my salary alone. Unfortunately, many of my previous schoolmates made the decision (or lack of decision), that the young girl in Moore's story made - have children out of wedlock un-apologetically. When I mention my outrage that I have to pay for their WIC, my mom and sister who keep in touch with my former contemporaries (they never left the hometown or their high-school culture), they tell me that I'm being insensitive, and that I should watch what I say lest people get offended. I guess not hurting people's feelings is more important than being held responsible for other's bad decisions.
Thank you, Mr. Moore, and Ricochetoise in general, for letting me vent my frustrations to like-minded, responsible people.
And now my daughter who is sitting on my lap is telling me she needs to be fed.
Sep '10
Re: Free, White, Under Twenty-One . . . And on the Dole: A Portrait of the New Welfare State
Every parent of a teen age boy, when seeing one of these fat mommas wheeling around a couple of illegitimates, should say the following within ear shot of the boy: "I don't understand why the men didn't use protection when they had sex with her. After all, those kids will have call on his income for 18 or more years."
Feb '11
Re: Free, White, Under Twenty-One . . . And on the Dole: A Portrait of the New Welfare State
It's this young lady's parents who should be footing the bill, for having raised such a wretched beast of a child. But what's it matter? Half of Americans aren't even asked to pay their share of taxes. At the very least, they ought not be allowed to vote. It's not like the universal franchise was revealed by God.
---
"Major Reid smiled cynically. 'I have never been able to see how a thirty-year old moron can vote more wisely than a fifteen-year-old genius ... but that was the age of the "divine right of the common man." Never mind, they paid for their folly.'"
Jul '10
Re: Free, White, Under Twenty-One . . . And on the Dole: A Portrait of the New Welfare State
Claire, you need to turn off the mute button.
Apr '11
Re: Free, White, Under Twenty-One . . . And on the Dole: A Portrait of the New Welfare State
The bastard rate for all ethnic groups has gone up considerably after release of the Moynihan report when the gov't decided to step in and "help" the situation. Beyond the actual rate though, is something more ominous. A child born to an out of weldlock mother prior to the mid-60's had a high likelihood of being raised in a home with an exteded family. Even without a biological father present, there was a high probability that grandparents, cousins, uncles, etc in the child's life lessened the negative impact. Now children born in this situation face a revolving door of boyfriends and very little help from extended family or community.
In this regard welfare has destroyed both the quantity and quality of bastard children.
Dec '10
Re: Free, White, Under Twenty-One . . . And on the Dole: A Portrait of the New Welfare State
"I am for doing good to the poor, but I differ in opinion of the means. I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it."
also:
"Laziness travels so slowly that poverty soon overtakes him."
Ben Franklin
Jun '11
Re: Free, White, Under Twenty-One . . . And on the Dole: A Portrait of the New Welfare State
Great piece, Terrence.
As I read this, my thoughts went directly to my extended family and how much difference there is between two generations. I have a male cousin, near 50 now that became a father at 17. When his girlfriend found out, they were seniors in high school. They got married, he graduated in December instead of May and went to work as a carpenter.
If he ever questioned that he would do that, my Uncle ended that quickly. Folly becomes responsibility when the "bullet hits the bone".
They had a daughter, followed by a son two years later. The marriage failed a few years later, but both children were raised and supported by their father. At 17, his daughter announced that she was pregnant. He became a grandfather at 34. His daughter married the father of her second child, briefly and both children have been financially supported largely by government programs to supplement what part time job she has at the time. She has no job skills,
She now has a grandchild, being raised by her daughter, unwed, supported by government programs. In one generation, responsibility has changed from being the parent's to being society's.
Jan '11
Re: Free, White, Under Twenty-One . . . And on the Dole: A Portrait of the New Welfare State
People with jobs are the new helots, serving a weird new breed of anti-Spartans
Sep '10
Re: Free, White, Under Twenty-One . . . And on the Dole: A Portrait of the New Welfare State
I was unemployed when my son was born. Two different people tried to tell my wife and I that we should apply for WIC.
When I explained that we still had a fair amount of money in savings and investments, the one woman told my wife that we shouldn't have "waste" our savings (evidently using your savings for things like food and shelter is wasteful when you live in a Welfare state). The other woman told me that we should apply anyway because, "if they do not get enough people on the plan this year they will cut the budget for next year." Neither of these women were on the dole themselves, but they saw no shame in promoting that lifestyle.
Re: Free, White, Under Twenty-One . . . And on the Dole: A Portrait of the New Welfare State
Thanks much for the comments and welcomes aboard.
The wards of the New Welfare State actually do shop at Whole Foods. The sister of a student of mine worked at the Whole Foods in Boulder, Colorado while she was in and just out of college. People came to check out through her line with food stamps regularly. As a good conservative and free marketeer, she would not put up with it. She would always feign not knowing how the stamps were supposed to be run through the register and--better still--get on the P.A. to call for a manager: "We have a problem with food stamps on aisle 9!" Now there is a young lady of principle.
May '10
Re: Free, White, Under Twenty-One . . . And on the Dole: A Portrait of the New Welfare State
You wouldn't want them to shop in some dump would you?
BTW Terrence, don't be a stranger. Come as a guest for a week, stay as a regular contributor.
Mar '11
Re: Free, White, Under Twenty-One . . . And on the Dole: A Portrait of the New Welfare State
I heartily approve of this post, and just want people to use "bastardy" more. I also want the federal government to adopt an official Over-All Bastard Rate metric.
Re: Free, White, Under Twenty-One . . . And on the Dole: A Portrait of the New Welfare State
Sisyphus
Claire, you need to turn off the mute button. · Aug 14 at 11:47am
That's odd, where did my comment go?