T. 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.
T. Elliot Gaiser is a political and cultural commentator and a student of Political Economics at Hillsdale College. He enjoys writing fiction, engaging in vigorous debate, and playing the cello. He also operates his own website, www.researchandthinkbeforeyouvote.com.
More by T. Elliot Gaiser:
Its a problem that feeds itself. Once the government steps in to handle a problem, private charity withers away. The people don’t need the help, since they are getting help from the government, and the givers don’t see any point in giving money when the government is already taking their money to solve that problem. When the charities give way, no infrastructure remains to solve the problems, except that which the government creates.
This is the state we are in. While churches, and individuals, do aid poor people, its only a fraction of what is going to the poor. The liberals can claim that the private charities don’t have it in their power to solve the problems that the government is tackling. They are absolutely correct, but its because the government took over that we have lost that capability.
We can return to the days when private charities handled these problems, but it will take time and political will, and the latter is lacking. Even looking at our recent past, when Republicans ruled, there is little evidence for hope. Their answer to the problem: give churches the money to run social program. It was the government’s money, the churches just got to administer it, but with restrictions that forbade them to act like a church. The programs may have been run more efficiently, but they were still government programs. Even those groups acting outside the faith-based (government) initiatives act within the government infrastructure. When a family goes to a church for help the immediate need may be taken care of locally, but they are often then directed to the local social services agency.
The ultimate answer must not be more efficient government programs, but the elimination of these programs. Only this will give the private charities the space to grow and develop their muscles.
But, as I said, the political will is lacking. What is needed is not just brave, committed politicians. They need a supporting cast to set the terms of the debate. Jefferson didn’t write the constitution ex nihilio. Locke had already created its intellectual base. When the cause looked bleak, it was not the politicians alone who rallied the people. They succeeded because the people had been prepared by a fiery propagandist, Thomas Paine. While Reagan used his oratorical skills to convince the people that oftentimes it was the government that was the problem, he walked on ground prepared by William F. Buckley Jr who, twice a month, stood athwart history and yelled “Stop!” as another issue of National Review rolled off of the presses.
You are already engaged in this supporting work. I have no doubt that your oratorical skills will also allow you the opportunity to succeed politically, but if voters are not yet ready for your message, take solace in knowing that the background work is the important stuff. It may be grand to be Lincoln, but the world burned because of Harriet Beecher Stowe.
Elliot,
Well stated and succinctly written. What was one of the most popular movies in the last decade, that speaks to that very core ideal that freedom means risk…? “The Truman Show”. I hope you have seen it. In it, the main character comes to learn his whole life has been pre-determnined from his conception, and is, in fact, merely a TV show. Cristoff, the creator of Truman’s world, dictates every nuance of his life.
Truman discovers this truth, and longs to be free. Cristoff tries to reason with him that the “real world” is a dangerous place, and that he will be hurt and life will be hard. In a grand show of free will, Truman “signs off” while the “real world” watches and cheers via television.
I cried alone in the theater (yes I go to movies alone), and wished that those dependent on temporary comforts from the government would have the proverbial “spittle and dirt” applied to their eyes.
We are nothing if we are not free.
I hope the veil is lifting on the helpless attitude of many that have not ever known what it is like to fight for the freedoms they have.
Well-articulated, Elliot, but I’ve a couple questions:
1) The quotation from Brad Heath notes that “Counties that supported Obama last year have reaped twice as much money per person from the…stimulus package as those that voted for…Sen. John McCain.” 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.” However, this second quotation does not, like the first, clearly report that “Obama counties” collected more aid per person. If the “Obama counties” had more people, the difference in aid might not necessarily be disproportional. Granted, that fact does not undermine your entire argument, which seems largely on-point. But it’s worth checking out.
2) You state that “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.” Later, you note that “We should once again remember that freedom requires responsibility” (very true) and “The way out of this mess…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. … 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” (also true, and you’re correct in saying it’s a long and hard road).
But your suggestion for reform begins with “I believe we can start by electing leaders who will shift government’s focus.” Who will elect leaders who would do such a thing, and where? Did you not already state that the “dissenters” who vote for low-tax, low-spending candidates are “nearly helpless,” politically speaking? The most problematic part of the whole question is the fact that the addicts also comprise the majority of voters; therefore the reforms needed – recultivating a more local safety net and a culture of virtue – would not be voted into place. “Convincing the dependent majority” will not be effected by some ruling from the federal government, especially since it, so far as I can tell, is all too happy to keep folks reliant on it as long as someone gets billed.
JC,
Thank you for your questions. They are certainly valid and are both thoughtful and challenging.
1) The full USA TODAY article can be seen below. The point is that certain blocks of people who have more federal money sustaining their regions, whether or not these regions have a larger population, (and of course, the people in those regions inevitably feel federal injections, even indirectly) hold the majority politically.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2009-07-08-redblue_N.htm
2) I think the ambiguity comes here (and it is my fault) from not differentiating between “we” as in the American people and “we” as in those who are reading this article and agree with my conclusions. First, I suggest that “we” (those who agree dependence is something to be avoided) need to convince the majority to change their minds. Second, I suggest “we” (as in the American people in general) need to elect a certain type of leader who will advocate those two priorities (community and virtue) in order to turn off the spigots of tax dollars.
Furthermore, while it is certainly true that the majority and the federal government are happy with the dependent status of much of America, and that the minority have nearly no political power — electing congressmen, local officials, and even senators, is not out of the power of a focused, vocal, and committed minority. Perhaps I’m a little overly-optimistic, but while electing a president who shares the vision of shrinking America’s dependence may be nearly impossible, electing a congress committed to that end is well within the “art of the possible” for those of us who want independence back.
Most awesomely articulated sir. You are so correct that the “DRUG” of government hand-out will be hard to kick. Very sobering. Ben Franklin was correct – and it seems that many, many have discovered they can “vote themselves money”. And guess what? It’s MY money!!!
[...] Gaiser: The End of the American Republic [...]