This page was last updated on September 1, 2011.
Big Brother, Can You Spare a Dime?; State Rep. Jesse White (D-46); August 31, 2011.
Previous White pieces I critiqued are here and here.
You can also find this piece on the Beaver Countian. The Beaver Countian appears to be a “one man band” consisting of John Paul, a self-described “citizen journalist.”
Below is a detailed critique of excerpts from the subject opinion piece.
“I absolutely believe Governor Corbett did the right thing in asking for relief, and I believe the President was correct in signing off on the request. But I could not help but notice how quickly so many people in power stopped demonizing government spending just long enough to ask the President for federal disaster relief funding.”
[RWC] There’s a difference between immediate/short-duration disaster relief and ongoing “entitlements,” handouts, subsidies, et cetera. This is central to this piece yet Mr. White chose not to draw this very important distinction. Should victims of a natural disaster get help? Of course, but to the extent possible it should come from private charities funded by voluntary contributions, not by confiscating hard-earned money from hard-working taxpayers.
“I’m curious as to how my Tea Party-minded friends (and I’m not being sarcastic, I do have friends who identify themselves as members of the Tea Party) feel about this request. Should the federal government use public money to pay for disaster relief, or should those affected simply pull themselves up by their bootstraps and rebuild in the free market?”
[RWC] There is no such thing as “public money.” The only money government has is that confiscated from “we the people” via fees, taxes, et cetera. Even the money printed by the feds while monetizing our debt comes from us because its value comes at the expense of devaluing the dollars we hold.
In most cases I oppose state and local governments going to the feds for disaster relief. In the case of Pennsylvania, we’re a commonwealth of nearly 13 million residents with an annual budget of nearly $30 billion. I have a hard time believing PA and most states can’t handle most disasters on their own. There are exceptions to every rule, but I don’t believe Hurricane Irene qualifies, at least for PA.
I could be wrong, but Mr. White’s idea of “disaster relief” may differ from mine. My idea of disaster relief is mostly short-duration stuff like helping with cleanup, demolition, providing water, temporary housing, et cetera. I could be wrong, but his question “should those affected simply pull themselves up by their bootstraps and rebuild in the free market?” tells me Mr. White’s idea of disaster relief is much broader and longer-term than mine. My answer to the question is “yes.”
“This isn’t political sniping or partisan bickering. The Tea Party’s belief in limited government is a tent pole of their philosophy, and since they are a relatively new coalition without much history on these issues, it is entirely reasonable to ask for an opinion of where the line ought to be drawn. I’m guessing people in impacted areas consider the disaster relief to be acceptable, while those in non-impacted areas find it to be wasteful government spending.”
[RWC] “This isn’t political sniping or partisan bickering?” Sure. Mr. White “earned a bachelor’s degree in political science from Washington and Jefferson College” and has been a PA state rep for 4½ years. It’s difficult to believe Mr. White doesn’t know the difference between “limited government” and no government.
Limited government does not mean no government/regulations. Government should provide a civil and criminal legal environment, law enforcement, national security, some elements of infrastructure like roads, et cetera.
On the other hand, government has no business confiscating the fruits of one person’s labor and giving them to another. Programs like Medicaid, Medicare, Socialist Security, Obamacare, farm welfare, subsidies, et cetera, fall into this category. In an 1816 letter to Joseph Milligan, Thomas Jefferson wrote, “To take from one, because it is thought that his own industry and that of his fathers has acquired too much, in order to spare to others, who, or whose fathers have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association, ‘the guarantee to every one of a free exercise of his industry, and the fruits acquired by it.’”
“I get tired of hearing people describe any government service they don’t personally happen to use as wasteful while quietly using plenty of government services themselves, coupled with the certitude that the private sector can automatically do anything better than government. Let me see the massive private sector investment to totally rebuild areas impacted by the hurricane and prove me wrong.”
[RWC] I don’t know what Mr. White expects. It’s clearly the responsibility of government and quasi-government (water authorities, et cetera) entities to fix things they operate like bridges, roads, water systems, dams, locks, et cetera. Cable TV, gas, electricity, telephone, et cetera businesses will repair damage to their facilities as they always do. Beyond that, it’s up to private property owners to determine what happens. If the owner purchased the right kind of insurance, his insurance company will cut him a check for damages. What the property owner does with that check is up to him. If a property owner didn’t have appropriate insurance and/or didn’t prepare appropriately, that’s his problem and he has no right to expect taxpayers to reward his irresponsibility. For example, should the rest of us who make better choices be forced to bailout people who insist on living in well-known flood areas?
“I will be the first to acknowledge people in the private sector often come forward and do amazing things for their fellow Americans in times of need, and God bless everyone who does so. But we’re talking about many millions of dollars in damage. What happens if no one comes forward, insurance claims are delayed or denied, and peoples’ lives are impacted? What do the affected people do then?
“Unfortunately, public debate has shifted to a place where many cannot stop perpetuating the false premise that everything about government is negative, corrupt and wasteful. This attitude is unbelievably counterproductive to getting anything meaningful accomplished whatsoever. Helping Americans recover from a natural disaster is common sense to most of us, but when those who spend so much time vehemently attacking government suddenly turn a blind eye and put out their hands, we deserve an explanation.”
[RWC] Note the straw man; “many cannot stop perpetuating the false premise that everything about government is negative, corrupt and wasteful.” Does anyone care to guess who “many” are? As have other lefties, Mr. White set up this straw man because it’s much easier to dismiss “the false premise that everything about government is negative, corrupt and wasteful” than it is to dismiss the principle of limited government. Perhaps I travel with the wrong crowd, but I know no one who believes government has no role to play. Should government provide roads? Sure. Should government sell liquor and wine, run lotteries, et cetera? Nope.
“This is important, because it’s at the very heart of the debate of the role of government. If you have principles, you can’t pick and choose when to have them. It’s easy to be against something when it benefits the guy next door; the real test of principle is when people are willing to make a stand against their own self-interests. Lately I see lots of the ‘government is bad unless it is government for me’ mentality. I wish that weren’t the case, but I see it every day.”
[RWC] It’s too bad Mr. White didn’t provide specifics and names. I think most of us on the right want to know who says one thing but does another so we can take action at election time.
“I’m not writing this to pick a fight or demonize anyone. The whole reason I write these kinds of things is to hear what other people think. It helps me do my job better and gain insight of the people I represent. I’m not stupid, but I’m not naïve or arrogant enough to think my opinions are above scrutiny and debate.”
[RWC] “I’m not writing this to pick a fight or demonize anyone?” No, not at all. Everyone knows implying your political opponents are hypocritical isn’t intended “to pick a fight or demonize anyone.” <g>
© 2004-2011 Robert W. Cox, all rights reserved.