Here are some definitions of Big Government from a few online dictionaries.

“Government perceived as being excessively big-spending and attempting to control too many aspects of people’s lives.” MSN Encarta

“Government that seems to have too much control over people’s lives.” Macmillan

“Any government wielding excessive control over its citizens or interfering with their lives.” Dictionary.com

You see the themes – control, interference, wasteful, big-spending.

That’s true, of course, but we’d like to be a little more specific and thought-provoking in our definition.

Big Government, in its most raw form, is a group of individuals that through coercion turns human beings into either beasts of burden or perpetual children.

It is that group which preaches entitlement over responsibility, dependency over self-sufficiency.  It purports that people are incapable of caring for themselves through free and voluntary choices, and therefore must be coerced into “doing the right thing.” It prevents human beings from being fully actualized, keeps them in a form of subjection and – in its most extreme form – slavery.

Does it do this deliberately and willfully?  Not in the beginning.  Isabel Paterson, in her book The God of the Machine, said:

“Most of the harm in the world is done by good people, and not by accident, lapse, or omission. It is the result of their deliberate actions, long persevered in, which they hold to be motivated by high ideals toward virtuous ends… …[W]hen millions are slaughtered, when torture is practiced, starvation enforced, oppression made a policy, as at present over a large part of the world, and as it has often been in the past, it must be at the behest of very many good people, and even by their direct action, for what they consider a worthy object.”

Even the alleviation of suffering, so long as it is done through plundering third parties, will result in more total suffering induced than ever relieved.  The total amount of suffering in the world cannot be reduced by forcing one group of human beings to relieve it in the way the tyrant desires.  The tyrant’s coercion makes more of mankind miserable, turns them away from productive endeavors.  In its extreme forms, Big Government paradoxically kills innocents in order to save lives.

Seen in this way, Big Government can either be a Tyrant or a Nanny, or a combination of both.  Either it enslaves you and coercively makes you work on its behalf, or it “protects” you from yourself, restricting your freedom while promising to care for your every need, in exchange for your agreement to keep it in power.

Either way, it treats you as either an animal to be burdened, or a scolded child to be suckled forever at its teat.

How you are treated often depends on whether or not you are willing to keep the ruling cadre in power.  If you do, you may lose your freedom but win the privilege of being coddled.  If you don’t, you may lose your freedom and be burdened.

So Big Government divides people into two groups: one group is the animals burdened with the task of producing the mothers milk forever; the other is that group which forever – or so it’s promised – drinks the mothers milk.

Now, in pointing this out, we’re not talking about any specific group that is favored by government and eats from the labor of others, we’re talking about all such group, from bailed out banks and companies, to subsidized farmers, to protected unions, to groups that benefit from tariffs, to the ever-growing unproductive government bureaucracy; in short, any form of corporate or public dependency program.

One of the central features of Big Government is that it encourages bad behavior in order to remain in power.  It bails out those who have made bad decisions in order to gain their support.

The individuals that comprise Big Government, of course, play god, determining which group of human beings will be the beasts of burden, and which will be the bailed out, dependent children.

Over time, people learn that it does not pay to behave responsibly.  In fact, the consequences for poor judgment will be so lessened as to have no moral authority over behavior.  People learn that they can live life however irresponsibly they want and some one else will be forced to pick up the tab … that is, until there’s no one left with any money or productive resources.

At that point, the system collapses soviet-style.  The beasts of burden decide that it’s easier to be suckled infants and then there are no longer enough producers to support the dependents.

One interesting phenomenon that we have noticed over the past decades is how Americans have behaved regarding debt and savings, and how the past decisions they made are now affecting them.

Look at what has happened in the U.S. over the last few decades.

This first graph shows the U.S. Savings rate (what percentage of their incomes Americans saved) over the past 50 years.

Notice that, for whatever reason, over the last 30 years people have been putting less and less money away for a rainy day.

Now, look at this graph of household debt as a percentage of disposable income over the last 30 years.

Despite saving less money, people are using more borrowed money to support their lifestyles, especially over the last decade.

Low savings rate + high and increasing debt load = people living beyond their means

At some point, the gig is up.

Now, look at this graph of the number of food stamp recipients over the last decade.  In the decades prior to 2000, the number of food-stamp recipients had been trending down.

So here’s the questions:

Are these events merely correlated or is there an element of causation?  That is, do government bailout promises encourage people to not take responsibility for their own lives, to prepare for “unforeseen” – yet predictable – misfortunes in the future?

Understand that we’re not arguing for or against this particular social program, just merely asking questions about whether or not Government Dependency Programs create Moral Hazard.

What do you think?  Do government handout programs enable bad behavior?

Does the knowledge that someone will be there to give you food, coupled with the knowledge that the government has the capacity to forever force someone else to pay for your livelihood, make you take less responsibility for your own well being, live on borrowed money, not save for a rainy day?

By asking these questions, of course we’re not advocating for letting the hungry starve.  We advocate for the support of voluntary charities, and lots of it, and we believe that each of us has a personal responsibility to responsibly care for the poor among us in ways that do not create dependency and thereby rob recipients of their dignity.

If you reward bad behavior, you’ll get more of it.  If you punish responsible behavior, you’ll get less of it.

Big Government must be opposed.  If we don’t oppose it immediately, over time in its most extreme forms it reduces people to animals or infants.

As Cato’s Letter #38 taught:

“What is government, but a trust … which ought to be bounded with many and strong restraints, because power renders men wanton, insolent to others, and fond of themselves.”

So what can you do? 

Sign up for our RSS feed and become a fan of our Facebook Page. We’ll continually send you information about how you can help keep government in its place.

Then, Join DownsizeDC.org and participate in it’s campaigns.  It takes less than five minutes per day, and you just participate in the campaigns you like.  In our opinion, it is the best project around for reducing the size and scope of Big Government.

originally published May 21, 2010.

A few quick observations. Why is Vermont (by far) the state with the largest proportion of non-poor people signed up for welfare programs? I have no idea, but maybe this explains why they elect people like Bernie Sanders. But it’s not just Vermont. Four of the top five states on the Moocher Index are from the Northeast, as are six of the top nine. Mississippi also scores poorly, coming in second, but many other southern states do well. Indeed, if we reversed the ranking and did a Self-Reliance Index, Virginia, Florida, and Georgia would score in the top 10. Nevada, arguably the nation’s most libertarian state, is the state with the lowest number of non-poor people signed up for welfare.

Q: Why are there non-poor people who are net recipients of government income transfers?

A: Because they have votes that can be bought.

Please subscribe to our RSS feed and join our Facebook group.

Liberalism is, at heart, an impossible promise.   A promise that in aggregate the peoples of the world can consume more than they produce, that there is “such thing as a free lunch”.   Its ideal – the welfare state – is just as big a failure as it’s nasty and brutish father, Communism, and – just like Communism – always ends in tears.  A snippet:

Lacking a limiting principle, progressivism cannot say how big the welfare state should be but must always say that it should be bigger than it currently is. Furthermore, by making a welfare state a fountain of rights requisite for democracy, progressives in effect declare that democratic deliberation about the legitimacy of the welfare state is illegitimate.

“By blackening the skies with crisscrossing dollars,” Voegeli says, the welfare state encourages people “to believe an impossibility: that every household can be a net importer of the wealth redistributed by the government.” But the welfare state’s problem, today becoming vivid, is socialism’s problem, as Margaret Thatcher defined it: Socialist governments “always run out of other people’s money.”

The whole thing is pure gold.  Perfect reading for impressionable co-workers and employees.  Print it out and share it.

Please subscribe to our RSS feed and join our Facebook group.

Currently we have four generations of people who are dependent almost entirely on what government is willing to give them.  If they earn money on their own, they are deprived of the Government’s largess.  If the household has a married couple in the residence, incomes of both is considered and there is no Government contribution to their income.  If they have too much in the way of assets, the household does not qualify for government aid.  The more children an unmarried woman has, the more she will receive from the government, unless she is generating income, herself.  The result is an entrapment of an entire segment of our society in poverty and helplessness.  They are de facto wards of the State, and have little opportunity to free themselves of subservience.  They are doomed to their miserable fate as are their children.

Slavery does not end there.  Those who are not trapped in the welfare pit are preyed upon by the Government which perpetuates the hopelessness of the poor.  We have to pay a large bureaucracy to administer the dole and provide the funding for the meager assistance provided by the system.  For those of us who provide the forced contribution to this shameful scheme, the tariff is at least 1/3 of our annual incomes to fund the Government which operates an economic sink hole.  Truly, much of our tax dollars are used for the necessities of society, as a whole, but too much is used to keep too many in wretched states.

How can we possibly correct the injustice?  It will not be easy, and certainly not be painless.  We have to start with individual responsibility.  We cannot expect to have banks or individuals bailed out.  It has been observed that there is no freedom without responsibility.  As long as our current system is perpetuated, none of us is free.  We are all slaves to the Government.  Instead of giving money in small packets to those whom we have discouraged from being productive, reward productivity.  Educate and supplement income to a livable level.  Require those receiving assistance to develop skills to support themselves.  Once people can lift themselves out of poverty, they are free to determine their own futures.  Unless all are free, no one is free.

Dr. Jacobs is a Reproductive Endocrinologist, practicing in Carrollton, Texas, a northern suburb of Dallas. He completed his residency training in obstetrics and gynecology at Baylor College of Medicine in Houston, and remained at that institution to become its first fellow once Baylor achieved accreditation for an advanced training program in Reproductive Endocrinology and Infertility. Dr. Jacobs has served on the faculty of several medical schools and was director of Reproductive Endocrinology at Texas Tech Health Science Center in Amarillo. Currently, in addition to his clinical activities caring for infertile patients and those with recurrent pregnancy loss, he is Chairman of the IVF committee at Baylor Medical Center in Carrollton.

Sign up for our RSS feed and become a fan of our Facebook Page and we’ll keep you informed about what you can do to combat Big Government.

“Look, mister, there’s two kinds of dumb.  A guy that gets naked and runs out in the snow and barks at the moon, and a guy who does the same thing in my living room. First one don’t matter, the second one you’re kinda forced to deal with.” – George from Hoosiers

So, we just learned of some moon barking in our living room that we’re kinda forced to deal with.

Liberator Online reported that:

“Chuck Collins, inheritor of the vast Oscar Mayer fortune and coauthor of a book entitled Robin Hood Was Right, has formed an organization with the unpleasant title of Wealth for the Common Good to…increase the top tax marginal income tax rate from 35% to 39.6% on household incomes over $235,000.”

Why should you care? Well, other than the fact that burdensome taxes are bad for prosperity, most small businesses pay income taxes at the household level so any plan to raise tax rates on incomes is a direct tax hike on small businesses, too – sole proprietorships, partnerships, S-corporations, and family farms.

Choke down that tax increase!

Collins is looking for billionaires to sign a petition to deliver to President Obama asking the President to raise taxes on individuals and small businesses that have income of $235K and more.

To put this in perspective, that’s like asking guys who make $100,000 per year to petition the government to increase taxes on people who make $23 per year.

What’s this notion that one person personally feels like he should pay more in taxes, then takes the extra step to decide that everyone who he labels as “rich” ought to be compelled to pay more, too?

What is driving this?  Guilt or compassion?

If compassion, why not give your own wealth to charity and then spend your time persuading others to donate as well, rather than trying to compel them to fund Big Government?

Charities are 120% more efficient, less wasteful, and more accountable than government. But then again, efficiency is a notion that earners, not inheritors, understand.

Chuck Collins inherited his money.  Laudably, he gave much of it away to private charity and for all purposes seems to be a genuine individual who feels compassion for the poor.

That’s wonderful.  But for this same reason, it’s perplexing to us that this inheritor wants to now pull real-earners into a Big Government tax fantasy.

Since Mr. Collins didn’t earn the money he gave away (a characteristic he shares with government), we might forgive him for not knowing how to use it to build the economy.  However, earners do know what to do with their money.  It’s vital to not prevent them from their role of creating value and jobs in the world, helping raise the standard of living for all of us, and building our current and future economy.

We of course advocate for charitable giving, and lots of it.  But if charity just isn’t good enough for Mr. Collins and the billionaires he seeks, there’s no law preventing them from GIVING THEIR OWN MONEY to the government.

Just write a check and send to:

Gifts to the United States
U.S. Department of the Treasury
Credit Accounting Branch
3700 East-West Highway, Room 6D37
Hyattsville, MD 20782

Here’s the website that has all the information he needs.

Why try to marshal the coercive forces of big government to confiscate the wealth of others?

Should we really be surprised that an inheritor of the Oscar Mayer fortune could be such a big wiener? (OK, that was juvenile but who could resist?)

This kind of thinking has plagued Warren Buffett, too.  He has, on occasion, argued that he should be taxed more and that others should be forced to pay more dollars to the government, too.

When I read the book The Audacity of Hope, the passages highlighting exchanges between Warren Buffett and Barack Obama made me roll my eyes.  Buffett spewed non-sensical platitudes about how “society” has been so good to him and other rich people, rewarding them with wealth, that he and they are somehow morally obligated to pay it back to “society” in the form of … (drum roll) … taxes.

Three things to point out to Buffett.

First, hey, we’re society, not the government.  We’re the ones that buy your insurance and the goods your companies sell, not the government.  You want to give back to society?  We’ll be happy to take that check anytime you’d like.  In the meantime, just keep creating valuable goods and services and we’ll trade with you voluntarily because you’re making our lives better off.

Just stop conflating “society” with “government” Mr. Buffett, OK?

Second, Mr. Buffett does pay more in taxes.  Ten percent of $100 is ten times more than ten percent of $10.  Yes, most of his income is in the form of dividends, not income (and dividends are taxed at a lower rate than income), but he could “remedy” that if he wanted to – just give the difference to the government or change his compensation structure.

Last, our biggest rub with Buffett is that he’s so darn insincere.  When he dies, he’s not giving his money to government.  On the contrary, he’s protecting as much of it as he can from the government – the Bill Gates Charitable Foundation will receive every last penny he controls.

Now, we applaud this!  But we boo the Oracle of Omaha’s hypocrisy to wish higher taxes on others when he full well has spent his life not only legally avoiding them as much as possible, but also directing his fortune away from the Big Government entity he’d like to see others coercively fund.

It was Dick Gephardt who said, “Those who have prospered and profited from life’s lottery have a moral obligation to share their good fortune.”

This erroneous notion of life as “lottery” is what has misled Buffett, too.  It’s a deterministic, fatalistic view of the world wherein some are predestined to succeed and some to fail and those who succeed do so only at the expense of others.

Of course inequities exist – some natural, some artificial – but they are not due to “life’s lottery” and the way to remedy them – if they need to be remedied at all – is not through confiscatory takings.

It’s like the parable of the Ant and the Grasshopper is a fiction to the Gephardts of the world.  It’s as if the Ant really scratched a few numbers on a card and thereby prospered, rather than having worked all summer while the grasshopper played.

Perhaps inheritors such as Chuck Collins could be seen as lottery winners, but they’re not.  Those who bequeathed them money were real earners who made real value in the world and had the right to transfer their private property to whomever they desired when they died.

Big Government has already implemented many “life as lottery” policies and that’s why it instituted a death tax to try and confiscate the property of deceased individuals and, ironically, prevent people like Collins from inheriting money.

In the end, even people like Collins should be able to inherit more than they currently do out of respect for the property rights of those who choose to voluntarily bequeath their private property to others.

If Collins can’t use his wealth to create real prosperity or give it to effective charities, or use his station to encourage wealthy people to voluntarily give, then give it to us and we’ll show him how!

You can let Collins know what you think here.

Sign up for our RSS feed and become a fan of our Facebook Page. We’ll keep you updated about how Big Government and it’s enablers try to get into your wallet and what you can do to beat it back.

He then recounted to us how Arizona came to find itself in this predicament.

At bottom, the cause is a fatal flaw within the state’s Medicaid program.  How that fatal flaw came about is the key lesson that we must not forget during the national health care debate.

The flaw was a Trojan Horse that once entered into Arizona law ensured an economic crisis years down the road, and that day has now arrived.

Some nefarious lies were told to the Arizona electorate that misled them in 2000 into voting for something other than what they thought they were.

Does this sound like any tactics you’ve seen employed by Big Government recently?

In Arizona, the state Medicaid program is known as The Arizona Health Care Cost Containment System (AHCCCS, pronounced “Access”).  As a Medicaid program, it is a joint-expense program between the State of Arizona and the Federal Government, by way of its Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS).
In 1998 Arizona, along with 46 other states, agreed to settle a lawsuit it had filed against the tobacco industry.  The tobacco manufacturers agreed to pay each state a part of the total $206 billion settlement.  The payments were to be made to the states over 25 years, a portion paid each year.

Arizona’s share was at the time estimated to be $3.2 billion, with adjustments for inflation and with a provision to lower payments if the number of cigarettes sold in the US dropped over that time.  Each state was permitted to spend its settlement money in whatever way it saw fit.

Enter Proposition 204.  The proposition was proposed to “Set into law the method of disbursing and spending the approximately $3.2 billion the state anticipated to collect as part of the Tobacco Master Settlement Agreement. Targets for the funds include education aimed at the prevention of tobacco use among minors as well as health care.” (emphasis SBABG)

So what you had was this chunk of money coming in, and a proposal to use it to prevent tabacco use among minors and help out with public health care.  Well, who doesn’t want to help kids not to smoke, right?  And if there’s “free money” coming in, heck, we can use it to help provide health care, too, right?

This is what was sold to the public.  A claim that it the proposition was to just use tobacco settlement monies to fund children’s and health programs.

But the actual language of the proposition was far different from what was sold to the public.

The proposition actually changed who was eligible for AHCCCS by broadening the eligibility threshold  from 34% of the poverty level to 100% of the poverty level. And it stipulated that if the tobacco money was not sufficient to cover this increase in spending that the spending increase would have to be covered by general funds and no limitations on enrollment could be made.  Straight from the horses mouth.

That part in bold, just 17 words, tacked onto the end of a paragraph, snuck into a proposition 2 pages, 24 paragraphs, 65 sentences, 836 words long, just 2% of the language in the proposition, was the Trojan Horse.

The taxpayers had no idea that language meant they were on the hook for this program for any amount not covered by the tobacco settlement. They had no idea they had just massively expanded taxpayer exposure to an “all-in” program with no caps on enrollment up to 100% of the poverty line.  And because AHCCCS is a first-dollar program, it meant that all tax revenue went first to meet all AHCCCS needs, and then whatever was leftover would go to the budgets of other programs, like, say, education, police, fire, etc.

And to add insult to injury, the provision allowed persons with incomes above the poverty line to spend down their income on medical bills to qualify for coverage.  Perverse incentives, anyone?

Fast forward to 2009.  What have been the consequences?

If you have a modicum of common sense, what happened was about what you’d expect.  More people went on AHCCCS and more money per person on AHCCCS was spent.  By 2003 Arizona had more people on AHCCCS than they had in public education!

From 2001 to 2003 alone AHCCCS payments increased from $200 million to $1.2 billion – a 500% increase. You’ll remember that the entire tobacco settlement, over 25 years, was only $2 billion more than that!  Gulp.  In three years they gobbled up nearly 40% of the settlement funds.

In 2009 alone the amount spent on AHCCCS is projected to be $1.5 billion.  The tobacco funds are long gone.

Before going on to more carnage, let’s just point out again that AHCCCS is an acronym standing for “Arizona Health Care Cost Containment System.”  You have to love the ironies embedded in Big Government misnomers.

Cost containment.  To be fair, Arizona is a growing state and its population increases regularly, therefore the number of the poor in the state has increased, as well.

However, by 2006 real (adjusted for inflation) per capita spending increased 46% by 2006! (see the graph below, created by the Goldwater Institute).

By 2006 AHCCCS accounted for 22% of ALL state expenditures.  Today, in 2009, 20% of Arizonans are dependent on a health care program that was originally intended for only the poorest of the poor.

And there’s another kick in the teeth. The $3.2 billion is turning out to be less than that amount, because smoking has decreased.

Finally, the end game has arrived.  Barring a miracle, AZ will likely pull a California and begin handing out IOUs at some point this year.  Of course, AZ could always sell the state capitol building and kick the can further down the road.

And all of this because of the unintended consequences brought about by little Trojan Horse snuck into a proposition.

Now, why is this important to the current health care debate?

That there are unintended consequences of giving out free health care that will make costs rise for everyone?  Check.  But that’s no Trojan Horse.  That’s right in the bill and has been well documented by the Congressional Budget Office.

That health care will be rationed and choice reduced?  Check.  But that’s no Trojan Horse, either.  That’s also right in the bill and is being well documented.

Is it that the program doesn’t bode well for the nation or the rest of the states since, “As Arizona Goes, So Goes the Nation?” Well, of course that’s true, but that’s no Trojan Horse.

The Trojan Horse is something called “The Public Plan.”  The Public Plan is a proposal being put forth in the Health Care Plan (HR 3200) which establishes a government-run insurance provider.

The government is telling us that the purpose of this provider is to keep the private insurers honest, to lower costs, and to make health insurance more competitive.

But that’s a lie.  Not only doesn’t it do those things, saying that the purpose of the plan is to achieve those objectives is an effort to obscure it’s real purpose.

Its real purpose it to lay the groundwork for the creation of what’s called a “single payer” program.  That is code for a government-run, socialist, health care system, where the government makes all payments for all health care procedures and therefore, sets pricing, determines care, and determines coverage for all citizens.

Don’t believe it?  Just have a listen to the President and his advisers.  When they thought we weren’t watching, they stated very clearly that their intention with The Public Plan was to reduce choice and competition.

Of course, they are out in full force, trying to spread disinformation, and telling you that they’ve said no such things as you just observed.

And they will tell you that they want an open debate, but they don’t. And they will tell you they’re being transparent, but they’re not.

And they will tell you that their plan will save money, but it won’t. And it will be more expensive than even the Congressional Budget Office’s worst predictions.

You can add that spending to the already projected Budget Deficits:

And let’s not forget the deficits that Social Security and Medicare are already on target to hit over the coming century (A Cumulative Deficit of $83 Trillion by 2080).  Tack the expenses of this plan on top of these.

Public opposition is building against the Health Care Plan and the Public Option particularly. Only 32% of Americans support Single Payer while 57% Oppose it.

Now, watch out. The Senate knows that the public is against single payer, and they know that the public is becoming increasingly informed that the road to single payer is through the public plan, so they’re preparing to introduce a public plan by another name.  They’re calling the plan a  co-op plan. The co-op is Health Care’s version of a Freddie Mac or Fannie Mae.  One Senator warned that it will:

You know this is the case when Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid concurs and says:

So don’t be deceived.  It’s the same old Trojan Horse the Public Plan is  They’ll lie about it now.  And in a few short years we’ll have a real mess on our hands.

Learn from Arizona.  Don’t be deceived by what’s being sold you.  Read the fine print in the bills, listen to the past statements of the people who are lying to you now.  Be forewarned.

Reject the entire Health Care Bill as it currently stands, and particularly the Public Plan and its brother-in-arms the Co-Op Plan.  It’s the Trojan Horse of Single Payer.

Please visit DownsizeDC.org and use their free service to send your Representatives a message.

We’re always interested in your hearing from you in the comments below.  If you have any “Trojan Horse” stories of your own, please also share them.

Hey, while you’re here, please subscribe to our RSS feed and our newsletter, and join our Facebook group.

SBABG.org

The Wall Street Journal published a piece yesterday that ties this corruption in NJ to the cankering influence of Big Government programs and policies and also highlights the malaise the state is suffering as its Big Government programs make war on Small Businesses.

It’s worth the read, and is a case study on where the country is headed.  We already have a pretty good case study in California where 7% of the US population lives, yet where 32% of Welfare recipients reside and where the Big Government there has squandered all prosperity it once had.

Read the article for the details of the whole sordid case study.  Here are the key conclusions:

Big Government is why New Jersey created only 6,800 private sector jobs from 2000 to 2007—while public sector jobs grew by more than 55,800. Big Government is the reason New Jersey ranks as the worst of 50 states on the Small Business Survival Index. And Big Government is a leading reason New Jersey has a “corruption problem” that an FBI agent at Friday’s press conference characterized as “one of the worst, if not the worst, in the nation.”

Sandy McClure, co-author of the book “The Soprano State: New Jersey’s Culture of Corruption,” agrees that big government is a big reason behind the state’s corruption problem. “You have all these little authorities that everyone has to go to for permission,” she says. “Too much government means too many opportunities for officials looking to cash in. And there’s no way that the press can keep track of it all.”

Ms. McClure is right: The more extensive government’s reach, the more opportunities the governing class has to steal from and shake down the productive class …

…The point is that politicians and officials have more to sell in an environment of high taxes, big spending and overregulation—the same things that help explain New Jersey’s anemic economic growth and job creation. When government gets too big and complicated for businesses to get their permits and approvals and funding honestly, the dishonest prosper. And the honest get fed up and flee.”

Big Government fails everywhere it is tried.  Where does your state rank on the Small Business Survival Index?  Any correlation you’d notice with Big Government’s influence?

Please subscribe to our RSS feed and our newsletter, and join our Facebook group.

When we hear this from people, we have to be prepared to respond with logical correction.  This wrongheaded thinking – that centralized state control “cures” welfare whereas capitalism causes it – is sometimes found in our workplaces and communities and needs correction.

In fact, in response to the last blog post someone replied, “Capitalism is the only system that has welfare. Not Communism or National Socialism. Only Capitalism. This is because the freer market as we are now seeing, deliberately creates a larger pool of unemployed to keep the wages down. As this drives down wages, more people become dependent on welfare through top ups.”

Aside from the “interesting” logic in this piece, (hey, why not deliberately fire EVERYONE [what's 10% unemployment, let's go for 100%!]  that will really get the wages down and that way we can hire them back and then fire them again and keep doing it forever!!!), let’s just take a look at this claim that Communism and National Socialism are systems that “don’t have welfare”.

Could it be that Communist and National Socialist systems are welfare? Group member and commenter Jack Foster says yes and gives us all some sound arguments and logic to add to our mental store.

Here’s his comment in its entirety:

“Communism is a theoretical economic system characterized by the collective ownership of property whether you work or not. It other words, the whole system is a Welfare System.

National Socialism is a vague and ambiguous political term that typically refers to Nazism.

Socialism is an economic system characterized by the state ownership of the mean of production and distribution. In other words and put simply, the government is the only employer. If you are out of work, it is the government’s responsibility to provide you with work since they are the only employer. That makes this whole system a variation of the Welfare System.

Capitalism is an “economic system” characterized by the privately owned means of production and distribution. Development is proportionate to the accumulation and reinvestment of profits gained in a free market. In other words, compensation is relative to a work’s value and usefulness to someone else.

In truth, capitalism is not an “economic system,” but the natural economic order of our world. When two children—who have no knowledge of economic systems—decide to trade baseball cards on the playground, they do so under capitalism’s inherently understood rules. Each card has a perceived value dependant on its scarcity and usefulness. A trade is not performed until both sides agree to the price. That is capitalism.

Capitalism even has a method by which the poor and downtrodden can be lifted and supported. Through charities, one can pool their monies to help those in need. If that charity loses the public good graces (through scandal, misappropriations of funds, high overhead costs, or inappropriate recipients), its funds will dry up. It will eventually fail and a new charity will emerge to take its place. This is the self correcting ability that underlies the whole of capitalism.

The Welfare System (the idiom) is not really related to any economic system. It is a wholly own subsidiary of the government. The Welfare System relies on the government to take from those that “have” and give to those that “have not.” The governments top down approach lacks the self correction of the capitalist charities and quickly evolves into the aforementioned stories of fraud and abuse.

The lack of self correction is not the only problem within the Welfare System. Firstly, it strives to replaces the goodness of the individual with the false goodness of the government. Whereas an individual may have morality, the government does not (and should not.) After convincing its governed of its “goodness,” the government will then muscles charities out of the market by unfairly regulating them and then drying up their funds.

Secondly, the government mandates the taking of funds from the wealth creator for the government’s coronated “welfare recipients.” The wealth creator cannot control who receives these funds. As such, these funds are directed to those with the strongest government lobby, not to those in the greatest need or to those that have more compelling goals.

Thirdly, the government agency, who distributes these funds, neither knows nor cares who receives them. For it, the measure of its worth is not in whom they help, but in how much distribute. This model is fraught with fraud, for the bureaucrat will feel no pain (though job loss, reduce authority or decrease of funds) when these frauds are discovered. This notion will always lead to the aforementioned inefficiencies. 25% distribution of fund is appalling but inherent.

Fourthly, the welfare system is a faceless entity that engenders a sense of entitlement. Many think that because it is their government handing out “free” money, they are entitled to it. After all, they are apart of the governed. Eventually, this will lead to the thought that they must “get these free funds before someone else takes it from them.” But what they refuse to acknowledge is that those fund do not come from the government—for the government can only gain money by first taking it—and that money is most unsurely not free.

The statement, “We are from the government and we are here to help you.” should send a shiver down every spine of freedom loving citizen, for the government will only help those that will give it more power; and the Welfare System is it biggest tool.”

Thank you, Jack, for your astute contribution.

Please subscribe to our RSS feed and our newsletter, and join our Facebook group.

It’s no wonder that big business is never leading the charge against welfare reform.  Many of them are great beneficiaries of it and it allows them to also “receive a handout” from the government.  Corporate cronyism.  The lobbying dollars the big businesses spend ensures that Big Government favors Big Business over Small Business.

Government regulations impose higher costs on small businesses, because the “cost per employee” to meet the demands of the regulation are much higher for small businesses.  No wonder some corporations actually advocate for more legislation and restriction on business – it keeps upstart competitors out of their market.

Perhaps most disturbing is the way welfare funds are used.

Think about this.  If you as a small business owner or as a small business employee were able to keep more of your money, you could actually create more jobs (by expanding your business and hiring others if you are an owner) and spend more in your local enonomy (if you had more take-home pay after taxes), THEREBY LOWERING THE UNEMPLOYMENT RATE AND ACTUALLY LOWERING THE NUMBER OF PEOPLE ASKING FOR WELFARE HANDOUNTS.  (I’m shouting this because it’s a fact no one seems to get!)

Taxation for welfare programs BEGETS the need for more welfare programs (and therefore more taxation).

Now, let’s talk about the consequences of Welfare dependency.  It makes us all worse off and actually enables bad behavior while diminishing the need to be personally responsible.

I received the following email this week from a member of the SBABG facebook group.  He works at a large national convenience grocery chain, but is very sympathetic to our small government message.  He writes:

You know what would be nice? If welfare could have more restrictions. 99% of all Electronic Benefit Transfers  (EBT) transactions  for welfare recipients at my store are for candy, chips and pop. Very, very rarely do I see someone actually use EBT for a necessity.

It would be interesting if there was data that showed how much junk food vs necessities was purchased with EBT.

At least energy drinks such as Rockstar or Red Bull are not covered. A guy tried to buy one a few months back and when EBT wouldn’t cover it exclaimed “They should pay for that!!”. Ummm, No!, I should not have to pay for you to drink sugar water!  I know there are people who actually need welfare, but I think the majority of people on welfare are too lazy to try and find a job (even before the economy went down).

Welcome to the harm that Big Government does.  Apparently, we are unable to work out social problems in our local communities, so Big Government takes from the most productive among us, gives handouts that do not fulfill their stated objective, and thereby ensures that the problems are permanently with us.

As we like to say, “Way to go Big Government!”

Do you have any “nightmare stories” you’d like to share?  Please leave them in the comments below!

Also, please subscribe to our RSS feed and our newsletter, and join our Facebook group.