America the Beautiful: Rediscovering What Made This Nation Great (12 page)

Socialism’s underlying goal of sharing with others is noble. But amazingly, many Americans who are having financial difficulty would reject the idea of the government confiscating the assets of the wealthy to balance things out. This attitude bewilders many who believe in “taxing the rich” and redistributing that wealth as the solution to everything. Many of those seeking to gain political advantage in our system recognize that there are far more poor people than there are rich people, and that by stirring up class warfare they can create an enormous power base for themselves. So far this political strategy has failed to yield the promised fruit because most Americans value freedom above financial security, just as centuries ago the colonists rejected the protection promised by the British Crown, coupled with its ever-increasing taxes.

As a testament to how socialism’s safety net can begin to tear under the strain, in 2010, several financially distressed countries — Greece and Ireland as the prominent examples — experienced dramatic shortages of money, making it impossible for them to continue their overly generous social programs the general populace had come to expect. Massive protests and violent rioting broke out in the streets because people felt robbed of what they felt was their rightful share of the country’s production. These countries had overextended themselves in terms of the benefits they had promised and simply could not take in enough revenue to fulfill their obligations. This unfortunately has happened in the past and will happen in the future because government-controlled programs continue to grow until they destroy themselves. The founding fathers of this nation were well aware of the perils associated with gigantic government programs, which is why they emphasized limited government and self-reliance. All you have to do is look at Greece and Ireland today to see the results of unrealistic promises made to the populace.

We can already see some of these socialist bubbles being popped here in our own nation. In the not too distant past, public service jobs in the United States usually paid less than private-sector jobs and didn’t have as many benefits. It was indeed sacrificial public service. Today, government jobs pay on average 20 percent more than private-sector jobs of the same type and have mind-boggling benefits — all at the taxpayers’ expense. Furthermore, if you have ever tried to deal with a government bureaucracy, you probably know how difficult it is to find caring and competent people. For many people, a government job is a ticket to an easy life. The founders of our nation intended for government workers to be representatives and servants of their communities rather than beneficiaries, and they never intended for public servants to be economically better off than the general populace. Such overcompensation places an enormous strain on government budgets, necessitating increased tax rates.

The desire to take care of everyone from cradle to grave is laudable, but I’m also pragmatic and realize that one can only take care of everyone until there’s no more money, at which time one can take care of no one — or one can reduce the amount of financial aid and encourage people to live responsibly, to save, and to plan for the future. Obviously the latter option makes more sense in the long run. For some reason, in recent decades our national leaders have stopped looking so much at the long-term issues facing our country and have concentrated on short-term stopgap measures that temporarily make them look good politically.

The problem of caring for the indigent still remains, and as Jesus himself said, “The poor you will always have with you.” Some are poor due to mental or physical illness and/or bad luck, and others are poor because they have no desire to work hard. There is a growing third group, however — those who work hard at lower-middle-class, blue-collar jobs, but whose salaries are unable to keep up with the inflation of a reckless government fiscal policy over the past few decades, resulting in real wages failing to keep up with the cost of living for a family. Should we make a distinction between these groups when doling out social benefits?

Believers in the capitalistic model are not likely to have a great deal of sympathy for those individuals who want to live off the labor of others, while believers in the socialistic model make provisions even for those individuals. I suspect, however, that if you took one hundred people and placed them in a capitalistic society for several months, you would find most of them gainfully employed a year later. If you took that same one hundred people and placed them in a socialistic society for several months, I suspect that a year later you would find a large number of them “on the dole.” People tend to do what they need to do to survive and are unlikely to expend extra effort when it is unnecessary. This is the primary reason why traditionally socialistic societies are not highly productive.

There is no one-size-fits-all type of government, and much to the horror of some people, it is a fact that our own government is a blend of both capitalism and socialism. The issue, then, of how to handle able-bodied individuals who simply do not want to work in a society with mixed government, such as in the United States, remains very sticky. The issue can be demagogued endlessly by both sides without arriving at a solution. Approaching the issue logically, however, there are three practical solutions:

1. Tell those who don’t work that they are on their own.
   
2. Take from those who have something and redistribute it to the individuals who aren’t working.
   
3. Borrow from a third party in order to take care of the nonworking individuals and leave the debt to future generations.
   

Logically, with solution 1, the individual who isn’t working clearly either starves or finds a job. What about solution 2? In this case, those who are forcibly constrained to support the individuals who aren’t working eventually lose interest in working themselves, since the fruits of their labors are
being confiscated. This, in turn, leads to even more individuals who aren’t working. What about solution 3? The other party buys our treasury notes in great quantities, thereby acquiring ownership of a significant portion of our nation. But these investors are unlikely to extend credit indefinitely, nor will future generations continue to remain ignorant of this downward spiral forever. At some point, they will realize that their future is being compromised, and they will refuse to go along with the program. Thus solution 1 is the only one that stands the test of logic and is the one upon which we should concentrate.

Necessity is the mother of invention, and right now it is necessary for us to create jobs while providing incentives to entrepreneurs and CEOs to keep coming up with new innovations and products. We must realize that excessive pay for executives is demoralizing to workers who don’t feel that someone else in the same organization is worth well over three hundred times more than they are.
¹
Fortunately “say on pay” arrangements have entered corporate America recently, which allows shareholders to have a voice in compensation for top executives and makes boards of directors more careful in determining organizational compensation.

Is it possible to implement solution 1 in a compassionate fashion? Of course it is when compromise is introduced into the equation. Instead of immediately kicking individuals off the dole, they could be weaned off over the course of several months, giving them the opportunity to make necessary adjustments in their lives. Again I should point out that we are only talking about able-bodied individuals who are capable of working but simply refuse to do so. I doubt that anyone in America would raise serious objections to taking care of individuals who simply are not capable of caring for themselves. Unemployment benefits certainly can be a stopgap measure for those truly seeking employment, but temporarily out of work. They are, however, not a favor to many who are not truly seeking work, because the longer an unemployed individual is not working, the less employable he or she becomes. Such benefits should be linked to work that needs to be done in the community, such as Roosevelt’s New Deal,
²
in which government programs were created to provide jobs and stimulate growth in industry, transportation, banking, housing, agriculture, and many other areas.

So what is the role of government when it comes to taking care of the poor? We can probably answer this question more easily if we leave off labels such as
capitalism
and
socialism
, and instead focus on principles. Government is
invested with power by the people, who are governed because it is much easier and more orderly to have a central authority than for each person to serve as an authority unto himself. Natural law dictates that people have a right to protect their lives and their property, and this is a concept with which there is general societal agreement across all types of governmental systems throughout the history of the world.

As an example, we live in a large country estate about thirty miles outside the city of Baltimore. Our kids are grown and have their own homes, and Candy and I are very content. We have no neighbors within shouting distance, and the drive from our front door to the public road is three quarters of a mile. If someone who lived nearby presented himself on our doorstep and demanded that we trade houses with him because he has a large family with many children and they need the space, whereas we have very few people and an extremely large house, I could refuse or I could voluntarily comply. If I refused and he became belligerent and attempted to forcibly evict us, I could attempt to protect my property, which could have some very unpleasant results, or I could call the police, which is an appropriate arm of our government, whose duty includes the protection of my property and my life. This is exactly what the founding fathers envisioned as one of our governmental functions. If, on the other hand, our government officials decided my house was too big and the neighbor’s house too small for his large family, and that they should confiscate my house and give it to my neighbor — or at the very least tax me at a high enough rate that they could redistribute money to my neighbor, who could then buy a bigger house — that kind of intrusive government would exemplify the very thing our founding fathers tried to avoid.

Not only did Benjamin Franklin, Samuel Adams, and several of the other founding fathers speak out against government redistribution of property, but in 1795 the Supreme Court of the United States declared, “No man would become a member of a community in which he could not enjoy the fruits of his honest labor and industry. The preservation of property, then, is a primary object of the social compact…. The legislature, therefore, has no authority to make an act divesting one citizen of his freehold, and vesting it in another, without a just compensation. It is inconsistent with the principles of reason, justice and moral rectitude; it is incompatible with the comfort, peace and happiness of mankind; it is contrary to the principles of social alliance and every free government; and lastly, it is contrary to the letter and spirit of the Constitution.”

In our attempt to be kind to the poor, we have deviated substantially from the principles involved in the founding of our nation. The United
States is, in fact, historically and currently the most philanthropic nation in the history of the world. But our founders fully realized that prolonged government-sponsored charity would destroy the values of hard work, self-reliance, and compassion.

I am involved with a number of charitable organizations that are dedicated to improving the lives of the many unfortunate people who live among us. One of those organizations is the Curtis D. Robinson Men’s Health Institute at St. Francis Hospital and Medical Center in Hartford, Connecticut. The driving force behind this organization — which screens hundreds of men without medical insurance for prostate cancer, and offers free treatment when cancer is found — is my friend Curtis D. Robinson, who traveled from Alabama to Connecticut when he was sixteen years old and penniless. He was very industrious, worked extremely hard, became CEO and owner of various businesses, and is now a multimillionaire. He has given away seven-figure amounts, receiving nothing in return except the satisfaction of knowing that lives that would have been lost are being saved. Many physicians, administrators, and caring citizens have joined Curtis in his efforts, as have I. It is very difficult to travel to any community in our nation and not find charitable organizations specifically created to aid the indigent citizens of that community.

Our government used to fully understand the role of private-sector charitable organizations in ameliorating the plight of the poor. This is why the government offered tax deductions and exemptions for churches and other charitable organizations. Today the government actually competes with many of these private-sector charities while still offering them tax deductions. How does this wasteful duplication benefit government or us, its citizens? Certainly by creating huge government entitlement programs, the size and power of the government increases dramatically. Before long, people generally depend on government for everything from food and shelter, to health care and education, to a comfortable retirement, instead of looking to government for the basic protection of life and property, as well as providing public roads and public safety.

I believe Benjamin Franklin was one of the wisest men to ever walk the face of the Earth. Was he a womanizer who enjoyed partying a bit too much? Probably! But he was a first-rate scholar, scientist, inventor, writer, and diplomat who was instrumental in the formation of our nation. He warned against inappropriate compassion, such as giving a drunk the wherewithal to buy liquor or smothering the human instinct to strive and excel by providing all basic necessities. I don’t think you can say that he was selfish and
simply wanted to preserve his wealth, because the same Benjamin Franklin offered to pay the British from his own bank account for their losses during the Boston Tea Party in order to spare the colonists severe retribution by the King.
³
Statements by Franklin and many of the other founders make it very clear that they were extremely opposed to the concept of wealth redistribution, which is a basic tenet of socialism.
⁴