 |
| Photo: Creative Commons/Gage Skidmore |
Do the 47% who pay no federal income taxes believe they are
victims? Do they believe the government is responsible for taking care of them,
giving them health care and food and housing? No. At least, not all of them. I
know this because I was one of them in 2010. The Making Work Pay Tax Credit wiped
out all my income tax liability that year. Other years I paid a very small
amount in income taxes, but I never felt like a victim.
Romney’s comment wasn’t smart. But let’s not overlook the truth in it. When the government takes responsibility for feeding and
housing the poor, those poor people lose some of their political freedom.
Picture a father entering the voting booth, knowing that he
needs food stamps to provide for his children. What if he fears his family will
be on the street without welfare? What about the grandma who needs Medicare to
pay for the surgery that will keep her alive?
Are these people free to vote their conscience on social
issues and foreign policy? Are they free to vote for the politician with the
best plan for our country as a whole? Or do they feel obligated to vote for the
politician who promises to maintain the program on which they depend?
I am not arguing against all welfare programs. I do urge
caution. Every time the government steps in to take care of one more thing, we
lose some freedom. Our forefathers pledged their lives, fortunes and sacred
honor to win freedom for us. Are we just as dedicated to preserving it?
I think this case could be made about any single-issue voter. Let's take abortion for a down and dirty example - if someone decides who to vote for primarily or exclusively based on where the candidate claims to stand on abortion, I think this paragraph will still apply, though possibly changing "social policy" to any number of things, such as economic policy, defense spending, entitlement, education reform, etc:
ReplyDelete"Are these people free to vote their conscience on social issues and foreign policy? Are they free to vote for the politician with the best plan for our country as a whole? Or do they feel obligated to vote for the politician who promises to maintain the program on which they depend?"
Whenever someone has a felt need that goes so deep they can't really think about anything else until that need is met (whether that be feeding their kids or overturning/maintaining roe v wade, they will be a single issue voter until that single issue is fixed.
So I'm not arguing with you at all, I think you make a good point. But I'm looking at the possibility of a plank in our own eyes. :)
I actually didn’t intend to criticize single-issue voters in this post. That’s the reason I mentioned a father worrying about how to feed his children. He’s not selfish. He’s morally obligated to care for his children.
DeleteMy concern is that welfare becomes a form of coercion. The poor feel like they have to vote one way to maintain their livelihood. Welfare programs were used to buy votes in the 1930s. (See "New Deal or Raw Deal?" by Burton Folsom, Jr.)
If we as individuals take care of our neighbors, if we support private charities, the poor will have more political freedom. They’ll know that a person cares about them and not just an impersonal government that sends a check in the mail. Let’s not call on the government to do the job we should be doing.