February 20, 2016 7:18 AM

If we can spend billions on corporate welfare, how about doing the same for people?

I find myself thinking a lot these days about our collective responsibility to one another. While driving back from a long weekend at the Oregon Coast, Erin and I had a long conversation on this topic, in which we tossed around a number of ideas, which set me to thinking. Before long, I found myself ruminating over one question:

How is it that collectively we have no problem with spending billions on corporate welfare and yet more billions on our military…yet we object strenuously to spending a smaller sum to care for those among us unfortunate enough to be down on their luck? How can we meekly acquiesce to subsidizing corporations and propping up their bottom lines when they’d be successful and profitable without public assistance? How can we be OK with a military with bases around the world? How is it that we accept the fact that our tax dollars in large part pay for the defense of Europe, in effect financing economies with no real for American subsidies? Why do we consider these wasteful uses of American tax dollars acceptable while considering social welfare programs to be incipient examples of creeping socialism?

How is it we accept this state of affairs without question, yet we howl in protest over providing unemployment insurance, welfare, universal health care, job training, and other social welfare programs designed to help give Americans a hand up? I don’t know that I have an explanation for such a glaring contradiction…but I know what I believe in.

I’m a strong believer in the social contract, the idea that we’re our brother’s keeper. We have a responsibility to be there for one another, to offer a hand up when one is needed. It’s not “socialism” to believe that to whom much is given much is expected. No one becomes wealthy and successful in a vacuum. All who’ve achieved a degree of financial success and comfort owe their good fortune in part to a country in which the rule of law and stable markets allow for success to be achievable. Simple human decency would seem to point to the need for those who’ve attained success to share a least a little bit of that fortune to help those in need…to pay it forward, if you will.

I understand that in the abstract my idea is a simple, perhaps even simplistic concept. Where it founders is on the details. Even if we agree on the implied responsibility to help those in need, there are significant issues to be resolved. Who would be considered eligible? What form would such assistance take? What would be the duration of such assistance? How would we create accountability in the process of providing a hand up to those in need of one? These are the questions a caring, compassionate society need to discuss and resolve.

Even if you don’t accept that we have a collective responsibility to provide a hand up to those in need, there’s a profound economic benefit to helping people rise out of poverty, illness, joblessness, and/or homeless. When people are put back to work, they pay taxes and purchase goods and services. That allows them to be a net positive to society, something that might not happen without public assistance. Not only is helping those in need a collective responsibility, it also benefits society over the long haul as more people become productive contributors. This will logically lead to lower crime rates, a better economy, and a more harmonious and compassionate society.

Given the vagaries of humanity, there’s of course no way to create a perfect system that works for everyone without the potential for abuse and misuse. Do we allow the perfect to be the enemy of the good…or do we accept that no matter how much we strive to create efficiency, any system designed by and for humans cannot be perfect?

To those who would argue that we don’t have the resources, that we don’t have sufficient tax revenue to create social programs of the sort I’m referencing, I’d ask only one question: How is it we always have plenty for corporate welfare and the military…but never enough to care for our own? If we can funnel billions to businesses in the form of subsidies, and if we can spend yet more billions on our military, how can we object to spending a far smaller sum to assist Americans in legitimate need?

I’d submit that we need to somehow find it within ourselves to assess our priorities- both on a personal level and collectively. We cannot claim to be a humane society when we object to assisting those among us in legitimate need. Nor can we claim to be fiscally responsible and prudent when we acquiesce to throwing untold billions at corporations and the military. Not that all such spending is unnecessary or irresponsible- far from it- but to say there isn’t tremendous waste and inefficiency is to ignore a glaring reality.

We must first accept that we are, in fact, our brother’s keeper. Once we agree on that, we need to determine what form that responsibility assumes…and, as you might imagine, the devil is in the details:

  • Who would we consider worthy of assistance?
  • What form should that assistance take?
  • Can we/should we require those we assist to “have some skin in the game?” How would we establish that?
  • How do we identify/deal with/sanction those inclined to game the system?
  • When (and how) do we draw a line and say “Enough!”
  • How do we account for the disabled and those who will never be able/well enough to support themselves?
  • How do we create a reliable financing source for this sort of social safety net?
  • Who do we charge with making decisions? What qualifications and/or experience must they have in order to be trusted with such responsibility? How will we hold them accountable?

I’m not a social worker or a social scientist; I can’t claim to have answers or specifics. I know what I’d like to see, but that and a buck might get me a latte. No, I understand that in order for a system to succeed it must be something with the power of consensus behind it…and it might well look far different from anything I envision. That’s OK; I don’t expect to have the final say, but I do believe we have a collective responsibility to demonstrate we’re as committed to supporting people as we are corporations and the military.

Whatever form a robust, effective social safety net finally assumes, it will require discussion, negotiation, and compromise required to get there. For my part, I believe we need to serious consider our responsibility to one another. We need to stop demonizing the poor, the sick, and the unemployed. We need to stop blaming them for their lot in life. We need to stop believing in “tough love,” that those at the lower end of the economic spectrum simply aren’t motivated and must be shamed into doing for themselves. That’s a degree of cruelty and lack of compassion that should be beneath us. We may not understand or accept why someone is down on their luck, but that doesn’t give us the right to judge and find them wanting.

It’s time we rediscovered compassion and recognize that we truly are our brother’s keeper.

blog comments powered by Disqus

Technorati

Technorati search

» Blogs that link here

About this Entry

This page contains a single entry by Jack Cluth published on February 20, 2016 7:18 AM.

Why voting is important was the previous entry in this blog.

If by "protecting privacy," you mean "EVERYONE will know it's you".... is the next entry in this blog.

Find recent content on the main index or look in the archives to find all content.

Contact Me

Powered by Movable Type 6.0.8