This page was last updated on January 19, 2012.
Welfare and subsidies should be treated the same; Alfonso Saahir; Beaver County Times; January 19, 2012.
In two previous letters [“Look to the Constitution,” 2/27/05; “Muslims are obligated to pray,” 12/1/06 (I didn’t critique them.)] from Mr. Saahir, he appeared to believe American Muslims weren’t being treated fairly. I would have included links to the letters, but the Times changed its website and material published before late-August 2009 is no longer available.
In the first letter, Mr. Saahir asked, “Is there any case history where American Muslims have committed any ‘terrorist’ attacks against the U.S. government?” Bad question, Mr. Saahir. In the days before the 2003 invasion of Iraq, Army Sgt. Hasan Akbar murdered two officers at Camp Pennsylvania in Kuwait and wounded 14 other soldiers, the result of his gunfire and throwing hand grenades into a tent where the soldiers were sleeping. In his diary before the murders, Mr. Akbar wrote, “I may not have killed any Muslims, but being in the Army is the same thing. I may have to make a choice very soon on who to kill.” Mr. Akbar was found guilty and sentenced to death. It happened again on November 5, 2009, at Fort Hood, TX. We also need to remember Islamist attacks thwarted over the last several years, like the planned attack on Fort Dix, NJ, in 2007 by the “Fort Dix Six.”
The most recent previous Saahir letter I critiqued was “Regulation need for credit default swaps.” Other letters from Mr. Saahir are here, here, here, here, and here.
Below is a detailed critique of the subject letter.
“First and foremost, I do not give support to welfare and subsidies if they go to extremes in their implications.”
[RWC] What does this mean?
“Welfare is granted by a goverment [sic] to the disadvantaged people. Subsidies are granted by a goverment [sic] to the advantaged people. A government subsidy is money paid by the government (taxpayers’ money) to keep prices lower than their expected market value. A government subsidy is typically used to keep an industry from going out of business or to encourage economic activities that would not occur otherwise.”
[RWC] I’m not sure, but I think Mr. Saahir is saying welfare is for the poor (“disadvantaged people”) and subsidies are for the rich (“advantaged people”).
“Welfare is granted by a government (taxpayers’ money) to support those valued people, the underemployed, the unemployed and nowadays those who are employed who are not making a liveable [sic] wage being employed.”
“So if there is an issue for removing those people who receive and need goverment [sic] welfare, then there should also be an issue for removing corporations that have their hands out and need goverment [sic] subsides [sic].”
[RWC] I don’t believe in government subsidizing any business.
I don’t know why Mr. Saahir singled out “corporations” unless he thinks “corporations” is a synonym for “businesses.” Subsidies go to all business types.
“Let us not forget that welfare and subsidies are benefits of the government. Let us not throw the baby out with the wash water.”
[RWC] I’ll go out on a limb and guess Mr. Saahir would not be happy if we eliminated subsidies AND welfare.
There is nothing compassionate about the government taking from one family’s paycheck to give to someone who didn’t earn it. There is nothing altruistic or charitable about telling government to rob from Peter to pay Paul. Compassion is when a person freely chooses to use his own paycheck to help someone in need. Do I believe people who need help because of circumstances beyond their control should get it? Of course, but via private charities funded by voluntary contributions.
© 2004-2012 Robert W. Cox, all rights reserved.