As a people and a nation, the best thing we could possibly do is put an end to ALL entitlements except in cases where an individual is somehow incapable, through no fault of his own, to care for himself. The key phrase is "through no fault of his own".
A free people can remain free only so long as they are self-reliant and responsible for their own choices. If a person never works, spends his life sitting on the couch watching Oprah while eating Ho-Ho's and doing crack, then suffers a heart attack at age 32, we should not have any legal or moral obligation to provide for his medical care. Personal responsibility.
The huge portion of all tax revenue is spent on entitlements, most of which are already bankrupt and hurting us all. Until 1933 when the ultra-liberal and (now documented) socialist FDR came into office, there were NO entitlements of any kind. None. Yet for 150 years, without entitlements America grew to be the strongest nation on Earth - even during the Great Depression.
Social Security? The government should require we save 10% of our income by mandatory action, but the money should not go to the government except in the form of Treasuries. Upon retirement, everyone would be wealthy. Meanwhile, instead of being blown on government pork, the money is actually invested where the nation actually becomes enriched, through Treasuries and corporate growth, which provides jobs.
Medicare? Only for children and others who are unable to care for themselves through no fault of their own. All others - take greater care with your health, because YOU will be the only one paying to maintain it. I should not have to pay to care for an over-eating, alcoholic heavy smoker that shoots heroin. Personal responsibility and self-reliance = freedom.
Welfare? Same thing. If you are hungry because you are too lazy or drug-addicted to earn your own way, too bad. It sucks to be you. But YOU can change that, or, better still, prevent it. One of nature's strongest incentives to action is HUNGER. If more people knew we would not care for them, they might be more prone to make better choices.
College grants? Only for those who meet two requirements: 1) they cannot afford college on their own AND 2) they choose a career that this nation needs more of, and agree by contract to work in that career for at least 10 years. We do not need more lawyers, so grants for law students would not be available. We do need better teachers, researchers and security personnel, so they would be eligible for college grants because it benefits us all.
Other grants? Only in cases where the grant is directly used to benefit the entire nation, and not just certain special interest groups. Grant to study Alzheimer's, yes. Grants to protect dead insects (there was a $253,000 grant for that in North Carolina), absolutely not. Grants for the Endowment for the Arts would have to prove that it would be used for the betterment of the nation, and not just a select group, such as individual artists.
I can tell you this with absolute certainty, and history backs this up: every nation that ever fell victim to entitlement spending (known as the "dole" system) has perished, or is in the process of perishing because of entitlements. The Roman Empire is the most notable - when the people discovered they did not have to work in order to be supported, they stopped working. With no one producing, there was nothing to give away, and the country fell into poverty and weakness, allowing barbarians to simply walk in and take over. The same is now happening in Greece today, and France is close behind.
And, thanks to the "government gone wild" here in America, we are quickly catching up to those losers. If something does not benefit us all, then all of us should not be paying for it. Educated kids benefit us all because they are the professionals, service people and workers that we will depend upon tomorrow. But drug-addicted criminals on welfare do not benefit anyone, so no one should be covering their butts with entitlements.
/
No comments:
Post a Comment