How much is too much?
If we’re talking about St. Louis style pizza, then you can never have enough. But as much as I’d love to talk about that, I’m going to address a different topic.
I read a post on Rambling Fever Money and it addresses one writer’s view on the government’s role in welfare and welfare recipients’ rights. I will let you read the article in its entirety and then I’ll give you my take on it.
This was supposedly in the Waco Herald Tribune on Nov 18th, 2010 but I couldn’t find a link to the original article. If anyone has a link to the original source, please let me know so I can give credit where it is due.
Put me in charge…
Put me in charge of food stamps. I’d get rid of Lone Star cards; no cash for Ding Dongs or Ho Ho’s, just money for 50-pound bags of rice and beans, blocks of cheese and all the powdered milk you can haul away. If you want steak and frozen pizza, then get a job.
Put me in charge of Medicaid. The first thing I’d do is to get women Norplant birth control implants or tubal ligations. Then, we’ll test recipients for drugs, alcohol, and nicotine and document all tattoos and piercings. If you want to reproduce or use drugs, alcohol, smoke or get tats and piercings, then get a job.
Put me in charge of government housing. Ever live in a military barracks?
You will maintain our property in a clean and good state of repair. Your “home” will be subject to inspections anytime and possessions will be inventoried. If you want a plasma TV or Xbox 360, then get a job and your own place.
In addition, you will either present a check stub from a job each week or you will report to a “government” job. It may be cleaning the roadways of trash, painting and repairing public housing, whatever we find for you. We will sell your 22 inch rims and low profile tires and your blasting stereo and speakers and put that money toward the “common good..”
Before you write that I’ve violated someone’s rights, realize that all of the above is voluntary. If you want our money, accept our rules.. Before you say that this would be “demeaning” and ruin their “self esteem,” consider that it wasn’t that long ago that taking someone else’s money for doing absolutely nothing was demeaning and lowered self esteem.
If we are expected to pay for other people’s mistakes we should at least attempt to make them learn from their bad choices. The current system rewards them for continuing to make bad choices.
AND While you are on Gov’t subsistence, you no longer can VOTE! Yes that is correct. For you to vote would be a conflict of interest. You will voluntarily remove yourself from voting while you are receiving a Gov’t welfare check. If you want to vote, then get a job.
Now, if you have the guts – PASS IT ON…
No One Has a Right to Luxury
I’m all for restricting food stamps to just basic foods like rice, beans, milk, potatoes, veggies, fruits, bread, etc. Like the poster says, if you want fancy schmancy foods, get a job and buy them with your hard earned money. Eventually I’d like the see the government get out of the business of feeding people and leave it to the states and/or private charity.
If you want the government to give you money in the form of welfare, I completely agree that you have to work for it if you are able to do so. Either produce a paycheck stub showing at least 20 hours a week or the government can find you a job doing something. We shouldn’t be taking money from hard working taxpayers and giving it to people who are able to work but choose not to.
I see the writer’s point that our current system rewards people for making bad choices. We need to be stricter on who gets money, how much, and for what reason. In my ideal world all this aid would be provided by private charities and state government, but to make federal government assistance crappy is a good step in the right direction of ending it entirely.
I love the idea of drug testing welfare recipients because using illegal drugs is, well, illegal (whether it should be or not is another matter to discuss later). If you are currently engaging in criminal activity, I don’t think you should get taxpayer assistance for food, shelter and clothing.
But when you start restricting people from getting a tattoo, having kids, voting, or doing anything else that is legal just because they are poor and accepting aid is dangerous and disgusting.
Poor Citizens Need Rights Protected, Not Rescinded
There is a difference between a right to eat frozen pizza and a right to vote. No one has a RIGHT to pizza. Everyone (who is a law abiding citizen) deserves a right to vote.
What if the government is oppressing people, manipulating the economy and making everyone poor; thus making it necessary for most people to accept aid? How would the poor majority ever get the corrupt politicians out of office without the ability to vote? This policy would very quickly turn our representative republic into a totalitarian state.
And what about babies? In the scenario described by the author, every person on government aid would either have a job in the private sector or be doing work for the government. I don’t want to live in a place where the government says a working person can’t have a baby because they are too poor. That’s eugenics at its finest, and it’s disgusting.
I want to be completely clear. The government can stop giving benefits, but someone who obeys the law should never be stripped of personal liberty under any socioeconomic circumstance. Never!
Government Should Never Infringe on Liberty of Law Abiding Citizens
A free person has the right to vote for his or her elected officials and the right to reproduce. A government that can take those rights away from law abiding citizens (even if it is “voluntary” on behalf of the citizens) is a government worth revolting against. Economic freedom cannot be achieved by stripping people of their social freedoms.
The only solution is one where people have unalienable economic and social freedom.
Kevin McKee is an entrepreneur, IT guru, and personal finance leader. In addition to his writing, Kevin is the head of IT at Buildingstars, Co-Founder of Padmission, and organizer of Laravel STL. He is also the creator of www.contributetoopensource.com. When he’s not working, Kevin enjoys podcasting about movies and spending time with his wife and four children.
For the record, there is no federal right to vote for President.
If there were a federal right then anyone (even convicted felons) could vote. However, I don’t consider poor people on the same level as convicted felons. The poor should have a right to vote.
If we are talking about conflict of interest, don’t you think restricting politicians from making different laws that apply to them as opposed to the rest of Americans, or allowing them to vote on their own raises is more of a conflict of interest than a poor person voting for someone who will spend tax money on welfare?
The Constitution gives citizens the right to Vote. It does not specify vote for president, congress or local elections. If there is a vote, you can vote period.
Text of the 15th Amendment
Section 1.
The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.
Hmm. I agree with some of it and then I don’t I agree that no one should be told that if you receive governement assistance, then you don’t have the right to some of the certain things above. But, if you are on Medicaid, you receive free birth control. Obviously, the governement figures that would be cheaper than having you collect for another child. But, again, obviously not everyone chooses to use that free birth control. And like you, I also believe in drug testing welfare receipents. Not because I think all people are on drugs, but because they are indeed receiving benefits for their children and themselves.
I just don’t believe in forcing anyone to have birth control. That’s forcing someone to take a pill or have surgery or insert something inside their body just because they are poor. That is an outrageous breach of liberty in my opinion.
ParatrooperJJ is correct, there is no constitutional “right” to vote in federal elections. It is a privilege. What the privilege is based on could be debatable. Like I pointed out in my post, I agree that welfare recipients should not be allowed to vote. As long as the current welfare system is in place, it is a “conflict of interest.” Of course welfare recipients are going to vote for the candidate that promises to take more from the evil rich in order to give more to them.
With what I described at the end of my post, aren’t we already on the brink of becoming a totalitarian nation? Although they don’t admit it and they try to hide it, but isn’t the government already trying to oppress poor people and manipulate the economy?
Trust me, I’m worried about the direction of our country. I think we are heading towards a totalitarian state and I believe there are a lot of people here who would like more government, which scares me.
I want less government. I want more freedom. I still don’t see how taking away someone’s right to vote or right to have a child makes us a more free and prosperous society. Take away the benefits, sure, but don’t take away people’s civil liberties.
But its not taking away any civil liberties. If you take the money, then there are stipulations that come along with it. No one is making you take it. Take the money, take the pill… if thats the rule, then thats the rule. If you don’t want to take the pill, don’t take the money.
The state governments are “allowed” to set their own state speed limits. They all “choose” to set them at or below the limit at which the federal government says they should because if they don’t then they cant have the federal highway money that they will get if they obey the federal “request”. Tit-for-Tat
Thats why I don’t believe in Libertarianism as an effective form of government, because it will only work if everyone does the right thing. Not everyone will. Not even most people. However I do believe in small government.
This is all fascinating, and I’m going to thinking about it for a while. Out of curiosity, Kevin, why do you see such a difference between getting a frozen pizza and getting a tattoo? It seems like since the frozen pizza is food, it should be more supported by the government than personal ink adornment.
(I do understand that either could be gifted, and the tattoo is trackable while the pizza isn’t really… Is that why you’d be more supportive of the right to tattoo?)
Everyone of a certain age should have the right to obtain a tattoo just as much as they should have the right to obtain a pizza. I’m not saying the government should pay for either, but I’m also saying the government should not restrict either (especially restricting them because someone is poor).
I don’t think welfare should pay for frozen pizza or tattoos, but I don’t think people should be restricted from having those things if they spend their own money on them.
When i worked at Kroger i saw lots of people spending their ‘own’ money on $200 worth of cigarettes and then buy $200 worth of food with foodstamps. Is it really their own money?
If people have enough money for a tattoo then they shouldn’t be on welfare. They should use their tattoo money on food and quit taking from us taxpayers.
I agree with this post 100%.
Yes, everyone SHOULD have rights, but when you’re on welfare having kids, who’s paying for those kids? Taxpayers. Shouldn’t everyone have their finances in order before having kids or spending their money on unnecassary items?
Instead of having kids or getting tattoos, why not spend that money on learning a trade or going to school? Then, they can get jobs and their finances in order then have kids and get tattoos.
Kevin, if someone is getting welfare checks, plus they have a part-time job, whose money is really spent on the tattoo? Are the welfare checks being used or “their” own money?
Once again, I’m perfectly fine with taking the benefits away and paying down the debt and/or lowering taxes. I will just keep repeating it. A poor person doesn’t deserve to have his civil liberties stripped for being poor.
I agree with almost everything the guy says with the exception of not allowing people who receive government assistance the right to vote. I also can’t go along with forced contraceptives. (Even though I’m disgusted by women who opt to get pregnant with a baby they can’t afford over taking birth control.) I recently heard about the state of North Carolina sterilizing women they deemed unfit to reproduce without their permission. Of course, this happened decades ago. But that’s the type of government that needs to be overthrown.
Rick Scott, the governor of my home state of Florida, recently required those receiving government assistance be tested for illegal drugs. I certainly didn’t feel compelled to stand up for their personal freedoms in this scenario. If you’ve got money to buy drugs, you’ve got money to take care of yourself. When some states started talking about drug testing people receiving unemployment benefits, I’ve got a problem with that. People shouldn’t be made to feel inferior because of circumstances beyond their control.
“When some states started talking about drug testing people receiving unemployment benefits, I’ve got a problem with that. People shouldn’t be made to feel inferior because of circumstances beyond their control.”
They are not made to feel inferior because of their circumstances. Most employers drug test nowadays so we are just continuing the same policy. And taking drugs is definitely a circumstance in their control.
A lot of employers check the credit reports of prospective employees. Should the government do that too?
Many people working in professional positions don’t have to take drug tests. Of all the places I’ve worked, I’ve only been subjected to drug testing by two companies, with the last being back in the year 2000. So, I wouldn’t take too kindly to the government asking to test my urine, hair, or anything else for drugs when the company who has paid unemployment insurance on my behalf didn’t ask for it. And since you generally don’t qualify for unemployment benefits if you quit or are fired from a job, I’d say getting laid off is, for the most part, beyond your control.
So, basically you feel “a person receiving unemployment should not be made to feel inferior by taking a urine test because it’s beyond their control”, but it’s perfectly alright for a person requesting welfare to feel inferior? That sounds kind of messed up…besides one could argue that being in a position to collect welfare was beyond a person’s control (death in the family, sickness, blah blah…).
Personally I think what FL is doing is great! I had to take a urine test before I was hired and I felt fine. If I wanted a pay check than I had to prove I was worthy to receive it. If you want gov’t benefits you should be held to the same standards….same goes for an unemployment beneficiary.
I definitely agree with you and Kevin about the voting thing…that’s pretty ridiculous.
“So, basically you feel ‘a person receiving unemployment should not be made to feel inferior by taking a urine test because it’s beyond their control’, but it’s perfectly alright for a person requesting welfare to feel inferior?”
Yes. If you don’t like it, don’t accept welfare.
I also don’t support drug testing recipients of Social Security or Medicare.
Although I understand people stumble on hard times, I believe welfare recipients have more control over their situation than those receiving unemployment benefits. Additionally, welfare payouts aren’t as closely related to your actual contributions like unemployment INSURANCE, Social Security, and Medicare.
As indicated previously, my worthiness as an employee wasn’t determined by my possible or potential drug use prior to employment. So, I don’t want to be poked, prodded, or tested in order to get something I paid for (or was paid for on my behalf).
When I first read it on Matt’s site it made me think of a slippery slope… say you start with direct payments, then move onto housing, then onto food stamps. When do you stop? Transfer payments? What if:
“Put me in charge of student loans. I’ll make sure students who accept loans don’t have any fun of any kind while attending college! Class, study, sleep, repeat!”
“Put me in charge of unemployment insurance. Any site that we, the Government, deem unacceptable will be blocked from a recipient’s browser.”
And so on and so forth. We might start the program with the best of intentions, but at some point we become fascist totalitarians… who draws that line? I don’t know.
Everybody keeps forgetting that these people are not forced to be on welfare, unemployment, or other assistance programs. They are not forced to give up any of their personal liberties. Also, is no in-alienable right to receive welfare.
I get randomly drug tested at my job, why not for unemployment? Real Estate agents get fired for a DUI, why not for unemployment? Models get fired if they weigh 800 pounds, why not for unemployment?
Welfare is not a right, nobody is forced to take it, therefore you can put any stipulations you want to on these payments. Kevin’s argument is that we instead of putting stipulations on welfare we should just take it away completely, so I have to ask, which is better: Having welfare available to those who choose to strive for something better and deny it for bad people, or, deny it for everybody?
I only agree with government subsidized for basic imunizations for the poor and their offspring. And I only believe in this because it keeps the overall population healthier.
If yor hungry its called a Soup Kitchen and the state or some private charity should run it. (Churches should be REQUIRED to run these or loose their tax free status).
While we are at it, send a few more of these illegals back across the boarder and have those who “cant find a job” pick the strawberries and such.
I agree with this, but you’d also have to do away with the other side of the coin. Allowing people smoking pot and collecting welfare to pump out baby after baby and have the taxpayers pay for it is also a violation of personal freedom, except this time it’s on the part of the taxpayers.
I think we would all get along better if it weren’t for these forced redistributions of income and top-down control of all aspects of our lives.