The other day, King George II was on TV and said that the government couldn't go in and clean up a toxic mess because the people might start saying "where's my valuable china" or "where's my valuable art." That statement, like Marie Antionette's suggestion that the peasants eat bread, indicates just how out of touch he is. Maybe he has valuable china and valuable art...but the majority of the population doesn't.
It would be nice if we could say that this lack of understanding is an isolated incident...but unfortunately Mr. Bush has repeatedly displayed just this kind of ineptitude. In fact, now that the government has stepped in, how has Bush suggested that the cost be covered? Not by doing the thing any rational person would recommend (i.e. rolling back the tax cut), but by cutting human services. Sometimes his stupidity astounds me...and just when I think he can't say or do anything more idiotic...well, you know what happens.
Of course, this is just another front in the War on Poverty.
I can just hear some members of my family saying "surely you don't believe that people should be forced to provide for others, just because they happen to have money." (Of course my family wouldn't typically lack the subtlety that is lacking here...but I get the meaning, none-the-less.) My reply is always something like "yes, the government must provide for its people, and my name has never been shirley." From there, the argument typically goes something like this....
[Them] The government shouldn't be taking care of these people, churches should. Don't you think that's what churches are for?
[Me] Yes, I do think that's what churches are for. Churches should be the first line of defense against poverty and it's associated ills, especially if by "churches" you mean people who pay attention to the Christian scriptures. (Which are very clear about caring for those cast out by society.) However, "churches" have never provided for the poor...I know it's a blanket statement, and it's sad to say, but it's true. Somehow they've gotten away from the "that there may be meat in my house" part of giving and have gone to the "that there may be fun things for my kids to do" and "that there may be a pleasant space in which to park my butt while I listen to someone preach" or "that my representative (pastor, priest, or whatever you call them) is recognizable and politically powerful". Frankly, if the churches would step up, and start giving what they collect to the poor rather than investing it in the building and staff, the government wouldn't have to...but again, the churches haven't...ever.
That being said, the government's primary responsibility is to protect it's people...that's why we surrender our freedom and allow ourselves to be governed. There are plenty of dangers that aren't related to terrorists, or pornography, or drugs, or even toxic sludge pushed into New Orleans. Poverty creates a dangerous situation both for those caught in its tendrils and those on the "outside". The government has a responsibility to protect the most vulnerable of us from the greatest dangers.
[Them] I thought you were all for a separation of church and state, but it sounds like you want the state to do the church's job.
[Me] Only when the job is protecting the people and the church is unable or unwilling to do it. I don't want the state telling me what to believe and I don't want a church telling people who don't subscribe to it what freedoms they can enjoy. If I am not subjecting myself to the church of whatever, they shouldn't be able to tell me what I can and can't do.
At this point the argument usually ends by them saying that I'll think differently when I get older...which I know means I should "grow up"...after all, if life-span statistics are realistic I'm past middle age.
It's time to face the facts...more often than not, people who enter poverty only sink deeper into it, even if they're "working poor"...that's just the way capitalism works. And, in case you didn't already know this, poverty is not fun...ever. I know what it's like to only have a single can of beans in the cupboard (that's not an exaggeration) and wonder what you'll eat for breakfast or lunch or dinner the next day. That is, of course, if you allow yourself to splurge and eat that whole can of beans. In that situation, there is no money to save for a rainy day...the future...or anything. The majority of your income is taken by necessities...and the few luxury items that you do allow yourself to purchase...like that candy bar or cup of coffee...is probably the only thing that stands between you and the all-consuming depression that comes from a realization of just how desperate and dangerous your life really is. (For those of you who are thinking "they (the poor) choose to be poor," or that "they could escape their situation if they wanted to by making better choices" please leave a comment and tell me something that would indicate that you're really not that stupid.)
So what does all this have to do with human services and why I believe that King George II is the Crown Prince of Evil for wanting to cut them? The poor are the consumers of those human services and in many cases it is these very human services that are preventing an even faster slide down into the depths of poverty for many people. In case you didn't know, roughly 90% of the people living in poverty are working. A large portion of the remaining 10% are deadbeats like the mentally and physically handicapped and small children.
Of course it's easier to cut services than raise taxes, especially when the people you've given the tax cuts to are rich and powerful. Oh, I know what you're thinking...we all received a tax cut. Really? I don't know about you, but I paid more in taxes in 2004 than in 1999 while earning about half as much. Now, it's taxes that most of us pay that fund the human services Bush wants to cut, but Bush has already cut taxes for the wealthiest Americans. Unfortunately, when you give a tax cut (whatever you choose to call it) to the wealthiest in society it creates a self-reinforcing cycle that will eventually spiral out of control and widen the gap between rich and poor (a gap that, in France, begat a revolution in which the political powers...like Marie Antionette...were summarily executed).
In all fairness to King George II, I will say that I can tell from his behavior, and from his suggestions, that he takes the "War on Poverty" seriously...but he needs to learn the difference between "poverty" and "the poor".
Stay tuned for an entry describing what a real "War on Poverty" would look like.
No comments:
Post a Comment