You're Not Supposed to Want a Government Handout!
The always dependable Jim Geraghty delivers a slap upside the head of the electorate today -- not that those who need to hear it will be reading it -- but I suppose it's possible that somewhere deep in the frozen souls of Obama's 47%, there still beats a heart that resonates with this bracing message: You’re Not Supposed to Want Government Assistance Unless You Truly Need It!
[H]elp from the government is only supposed to be used when it’s needed, and one of the ways we can ensure that the resources are there to help everyone who needs them is to discourage people from using public assistance unless it’s clearly needed.
You’re not supposed to want to be on food stamps, and you’re not supposed to use them if you don’t need them. When you’re on them, you’re expected to make an effort to reach a point where you don’t need them anymore.
You’re not supposed to collect unemployment if you’re healthy and capable of working in a job — even if that job is one you don’t like.
You should attempt to move out of public housing as soon as you are able.
The role of the government in this country is not to pay for your utility bill, or your cell-phone bill, or to hand out “stimulus checks” in exchange for your personal financial information. If you are so poorly informed as to believe that the government’s role is to do such things, some people may not be so sympathetic when you are the victim of some unscrupulous scam.
We need to be reminded that part of the social contract for those getting on public assistance is getting off it as soon as possible. Unfortunately, we have a government that works counter to this goal. We have federal agencies that measure success by the number of people enrolled in assistance programs.
Last year my wife and I tried to dump Badgercare -- our state's medical assistance program for low-income families -- after my employer enrolled me in an HSA. Badgercare (which we had solely for our kids) cost us a very small amount each month. Nothing we couldn't handle. When we told Badgercare that we no longer needed their services, they seemed reluctant to let us go. They re-upped the kids, but this time said it wouldn't cost us anything! This was a head-scratcher. I had more income this past year, but the state was now preparing to give us for free something we paid for the previous year?
My only conclusion was that they simply wanted us on the rolls. We let them have their fun, but the next time they asked for tax records (which we'd already sent, but they said they really didn't look at what we sent and could I send it all again) we just declined. The only way we could get off the rolls was failure to provide the proper forms, I guess.
The obvious solution for government drones desirous of retaining their dependents is to stop requiring that a certain level of need be met.
The Madison, Wisconsin school district has recently added free after-school supper, which I assume accompanies free lunch and free breakfast programs. Yes, this is federally-funded. And it's perfectly pitched so that opponents of the program can be said to want children to starve.
It appears, however, that the free supper program has more to do with nutrition than helping families with needs. At least, that's how officials praise it.
The menu for the Madison School District's new dinner program included turkey sandwiches, fruit cups, broccoli and chocolate milk.
It's healthier food than the soda, sugary candy, snacks and fast food some students will eat before going to evening activities or homes with working parents who prepare later meals, after-school program director Kelly Zagrodnik said.
"A lot of our kids are busy," Zagrodnik said. "(The dinner program) helps them do an activity and not run to McDonald's."
. . .
District officials say the dinner program will improve student nutrition, encourage more participation in after-school academic programs and eventually lead to community dinners that will welcome more parents into the schools.
"What's kind of unique about it is these are creative ways to help districts close the achievement gap," food services director Steve Youngbauer said.
Remember: schools are better at feeding your kids than your are. For heaven's sake! You might pack a bag lunch! Or take your kids to (gasp!) McDonald's!
And here's a parent afflicted with Stockholm Syndrome who thinks the program is wonderful.
Jack Eich, the father of a Falk third-grader who participated in the program Wednesday, said he and his wife get home from work around 5:30 p.m. and don't usually prepare dinner until about 7 p.m. The after-school dinner program provides a healthier, more filling alternative than the snacks their daughter requests before gymnastics class.
"It's well thought out," Eich said.
It is, in fact, perfectly thought out, compared to what appears like parental thoughtlessness. Call me heartless, but part of being parents involves feeding your offspring. (Here's a hint in case you haven't figured it out: children are those smaller versions of yourself that spread toys, dirty clothes, and homework around your house.)
But, I hear you cry, this is a two-income family, and they still have trouble feeding their children! Obviously they're in desperate need!
Well, we don't actually know that. Neither does the Madison School District. Because there are absolutely no income requirements for qualifying for the program.
Unlike the lunch program, eligibility for a free dinner is based on whether the school qualifies for the program based on school poverty rates, rather than the income level of an individual student. So any student participating in an eligible after-school program can eat the dinner meal for free.
In the blinkered view of government officials, this program is a success.
To reuse the overused metaphor, this is (as Joe Biden would say -- literally) calling in all the cattle to feed at government trough. No livestock left unfed. And if being referred to as "livestock" gives someone pause -- good. It should.
- Comment (17)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (6)
Comments:
Dec '10
Re: You're Not Supposed to Want a Government Handout!
I am mentally high fiving you right now.
There is such a foundation of hopelessness built into these leftist programs. They assume that these programs must go on in perpetuity. They assume that anyone who reaches a point of requiring government assistance cannot rise above the circumstances that brought them there. They assume the very worst of those in need rather than encouraging the very best in them. And, hey, if they can lock in votes by promising to epoxy the spigot open all the better.
Mar '11
Re: You're Not Supposed to Want a Government Handout!
Your post ties nicely into this Defining Ideas article about Victor Davis Hanson. From the article:
The entire article is a worthy read.
Edited on September 19, 2012 at 6:05pmAug '10
Re: You're Not Supposed to Want a Government Handout!
Great post. In a depressing sort of way...
Sep '12
Re: You're Not Supposed to Want a Government Handout!
I'm not a big fan of the social contract because the state stands on both sides of the agreement as a counterparty to the people and as the people's agent. Worse, even though the state is the people's agent in theory, it nevertheless exercises the authority to unilaterally impose terms on its principal - the people - as well as deciding whether to enforce breaches of the social contract on behalf of the people.
In reality, the state always becomes the principal if the people are suckers, and there's a sucker born every minute. That's why Obama selectively enforces or unconstitutionally amends immigration laws, his own health care/insurance law (waivers, the birth control/abortifacient mandate), welfare reform law (work requirement waivers), and federal criminal law (Fast & Furious). It's also why he believes he's authorized to fundamentally transform America while lying about it to his de jure principal/de facto serfs.
At present, Obama and his legion of radical bureaucrats can and will do whatever they like - law, tradition, good practices, norms or mores nothwithstanding. They do not serve us, so let's not expect them to act like it.
Edited on September 19, 2012 at 7:37pmAug '10
Re: You're Not Supposed to Want a Government Handout!
Great post , the image that still keeps coming up is one from the movie "Women in Love" when Gerald Crich is taking over the coal mines and questions the concepts of "widow's coal " , is told that they supply the deceased employees widows with free coal .
So who wants to be a widow in order to get anything free ? Imagine how strong the churches would grow without government welfare , how much more cohesive communities would be if they banded together to help those in need within the community ?
Although I'm Presbyterian, daughter attends Catholic school where they haven't had a nun teaching for years, yet once they all were. With all that need evident and the response voluntary, I wonder if the convents and monasteries wouldn't fill back up.
Ceasing welfare could be the key to rebuilding the moral fibre of our country and many of it's best organizations .
Edited on September 20, 2012 at 1:21amNov '10
Re: You're Not Supposed to Want a Government Handout!
Drew, this makes me sad. I've written about similar things happening in Montana.
A few years ago, we voted on a measure to expand the state health care program for kids. The "nay" side of the voter's pamphlet pointed out that far from the program being underfunded, workers actually spent time looking for families to sign up for it. I believe the expansion passed anyway.
I picked up a brochure for the program and kept a copy because I couldn't believe how it seemed to encourage families to get on it. You can make something like $55,000 a year and still qualify. In other words, ordinary middle class families can use it.
And the meals thing. This summer, a federal program started in our area where any kids two to eighteen could get breakfast and lunch for free, all summer, no questions asked. Yes, there are poorly fed (not underfed) children around here, probably, but the problem is not lack of food--we have food in abundance. It's poor life choices by the adults. They don't manage time and resources to get their kids good meals. Will giving parents an easy "out" help them?
Aug '10
Re: You're Not Supposed to Want a Government Handout!
Trapeze artists have a safety net in case they fall.
They don't latch themselves to the trapeze to prevent from falling.
Not a perfect analogy, but I like it.
Nov '10
Re: You're Not Supposed to Want a Government Handout!
We are so messed up in our view of what constitutes "poverty." If one through wage or salary has access to the basics--a clean place to live, clean, neat clothing, indoor plumbing, plenty to eat, and maybe some leisure time and a few extras, one is not poor.
Now whether an individual is going to use his/her resources to get those basics and not squander money and time is up to that person. But what is to us a very basic standard of living would be unimaginable to America's poor of the past and the poor rummaging through reeking landfills in other countries. We have an astounding living standard.
I do not comprehend this obsession with poverty and insistence that there are legions of hungry and poor Americans. It does not compute.
Nov '10
Re: You're Not Supposed to Want a Government Handout!
Our problem is, I think, that we're "grading on a curve" when it comes to determining poverty instead of using a set of common sense, objective standards to judge whether or not someone is poor.
It's all about comparisons. For example, a larger gap between the rich and the "poor" in the US is often cited as a huge issue. A hundred years ago and more, that income gap meant a leisure class vs. a toiling class who still did not have enough to eat and had wretched, filthy children who might have to work too. The income gap doesn't mean that anymore, but we're deceiving ourselves that it does.
Apparently, if one is in the bottom 50% or so of income earnings, he/she is considered poor. It takes overlooking the iPhone and satellite TV and regular meals at restaurants during a catastrophic recession, but there it is.
Edited on September 20, 2012 at 2:42amMay '10
Re: You're Not Supposed to Want a Government Handout!
The left has controlled the school system for how many generations now? Obviously getting a hand out is OK. What do you think they learned while getting their free, handed-out education?
Sep '12
Re: You're Not Supposed to Want a Government Handout!
Since someone out there reading your post is wondering why no Ricochet member is mentioning the Cloward-Piven Strategy, I'll, for the record, acknowledge for the sake of everybody that, yes, we've heard of it, even if no one in this thread mentioned it out loud.
Apr '11
Re: You're Not Supposed to Want a Government Handout!
Our time is so focused on food, I remember when parents had to make us come in to eat, and we didn't want too, we were too busy playing! This all started when someone noticed that kids who eat breakfast get better grades than kids who don't, and decided that it had something to do with the food, when what really mattered is that the kids who ate breakfast had parents who cared!
Mar '12
Re: You're Not Supposed to Want a Government Handout!
We have a government and a governing philosophy which destroys jobs, creating joblessness, and we end up with people who need assistance. I don't know how many of those 47% are chronic diners at the government trough and how many are driven there, albeit temporarily if they can find work.
I have a suspicion that many of those of the temporary nature would welcome the "back to work" opportunity if it existed. They haven't been leaches, they just cannot find work, or sufficient work to pay their way.
Dec '10
Re: You're Not Supposed to Want a Government Handout!
"You’re not supposed to collect unemployment if you’re healthy and capable of working in a job.."
Actually, it is illegal to collect unemployment unless you are healthy and capable working a job. You are also obligated to be actively looking for a job, some do not.
What is being descibed is disablity. Ther are people on disability who should not be, but I have no data that says how many.
Nov '10
Re: You're Not Supposed to Want a Government Handout!
Reagan made this very point way back in '64 when he was stumping for Goldwater; the success of anti-poverty programs should be measured not by the number of people being helped, but by the number of people who no longer need help.
Nov '10
Re: You're Not Supposed to Want a Government Handout!
I've heard far too many people, good people not cheaters, talk about the "cost" of getting a job. What it came down to was that their benefits were so generous that it was against their financial interests to lose their benefits. That's the real problem.
Apr '12
Re: You're Not Supposed to Want a Government Handout!
This drives me nuts-- true, I talk about how I don't get a job because we can't afford it, but that's because of the work I do that I don't get paid for, not because of the (theoretical) pay I get for not working!
Extra points when folks who deliberately don't get work because they're on a program harp on me to apply for programs that would make it over break-even for me to get a "real" job, instead of being a SAH.
*****
The thing with offering dinner is that it means that the parents don't have to be home when school ends. Same reasoning as "after school programs" and "early drop-off" programs. In one way, I can see that's useful-- in another, I hate it with the same burning passion as the school year eating summer break.