The
medical mind-erasure that Edwards has obviously undergone
seems to have eradicated the memory of a little program from
the 1960s called the War on Poverty. I think it's imperative he be briefed on this enormous failure
immediately. In addition to reading about the effects, I might
also advise him to step down from his ivory tower one day
and take a drive to an inner city neighborhood to see what
giving the poor more money really accomplishes.
"…would
be expected to work and make responsible choices about their
lives." I can think of no better example to show the
fallacy in liberal policy. Their entire premise - whether
it applies to the world or our nation - takes root in the
theory that all men are exactly the same; it is our institutions
that deprive us of the means to reach our true potential.
This segment of society that supposedly celebrates diversity
will not accept the fact that all men are not the same.
Liberals
have an undying faith that if we just "level the playing
field," the less fortunate will make the right decisions.
In other words, there is nothing that separates the rich from
the poor other than monetary terms. They expect them
to behave exactly like the rich. They expect them to
make responsible choices about their lives. After all, they
would certainly feel an obligation. They wouldn't dare take
the money from their fellow citizens and misuse it, right?
Was
this not the goal of the War on Poverty more than 40 years
ago? How'd that work out?
I
would take Mr. Edwards' hypothesis under consideration were
this the first proposal of its kind. I might even counter
with a proposal of my own that entails a small "guinea
pig" community to test out his theory. But I don't need
to do that. We have 40 years of evidence to prove what Neal
Boortz once said, "The rich get richer because they keep
doing whatever they did to make them rich. Ditto for the poor."
Apart
from free housing, money, and health care, the programs of
Johnson's Great Society gave the poor something much more
vital - a lack of personal responsibility. It was a policy
that was based on trust in mankind, not in tangible behavior.
There was nothing in Johnson's legislation that required a
penalty when a person acted irresponsibly with taxpayer money.
If a welfare recipient decided to buy a radio instead of food
for his child, there is no punishment for that choice. Up
until 1964, there was no expectation of responsibility.
There was simply no other alternative. That alternative was
created with the stroke of the Presidential pen.
Just
like Johnson, Edwards and liberals in general continue to
be plagued with the notion that wealth is the amount dollar
bills one has. That's money, not wealth. Wealth is the
behavior and the choices one makes to better or worsen his
position in society. Giving money to the poor - with very
few exceptions - does not change their behavior. It simply
gives them a validation. It tells them that acting in ways that
make them poor has no consequences. If one chooses not to
work, produce illegitimate children, and use recreational
drugs, he knows that at the end of the day, the American taxpayer
will still provide him with the basic necessities. How is
that a motivation to "make responsible choices about
their lives?" Again, Edwards' plan to end poverty might
be worth discussing if we didn't have 40 years and more than
5 trillion wasted dollars staring us in the face.
I
would not dare call John Edwards a stupid man. You don't graduate
from law school by being an idiot. However, I would suggest
that the man was asleep during his history and economics courses.
Luckily, there's a cure for ignorance. If anyone has a good
history and/or economics book to donate, please send it to
Mr. Edwards immediately.
