Tough Love

While watching coverage of Hurricane Irene, it has stuck me how blunt officials have been in their warnings to people who might decide to stay put rather than evacuate. The warning from these officials: if you stay and get into trouble, don't bother calling us for help . . we will not risk the lives of first responders. One official went so far as to recommend that people who stay write their name, social security number, and next of kin contact on a 3x5 card and keep it in their pocket in case they don't survive the storm. Serious warnings for a serious event. The government here is basically saying that people are responsible for their own decisions and actions. If people get into trouble, too bad. You will have to live (or die) with those decisions and actions. Pretty harsh, but it is this kind of tough love that motivates people to respond.

So what would happen if the government took this same approach when it came to day to day decisions and actions by the general public? Imagine what would happen if the government said to people: you bought this house or that car . . if you cannot now pay for it, don't come to us looking for us to save you . . if you are in financial trouble, too bad. Or: if you wasted your days while we provided you with a free education, don't come to us looking for handouts because your minimum wage job doesn't cover your bills. I know, it sounds harsh; but it seems to me that our government is making it way too easy for people to live off of the government. No doubt, there are political leaders who desire to see more of that. Even as food stamps are being used at their highest level in history (surely a sign of failed government), this administration is currently seeking out more people who they can qualify for food stamps (surely the sign of a failed administration).

What would happen if, just prior to a hurricane, officials told citizens it didn't matter whether they evacuated or stayed, emergency officials would be out rescuing people throughout the hurricane? "You have nothing to worry about, we will be there as a safety net to save you, no matter what". More people would stay, putting a much bigger burden on first responders to find and save them. That is exactly where we are right now in our economy, especially when it comes to social services and the big social contract items. Over the years our government, and more specifically the politicians who promised everything for just a few more votes, have basically told the public to take advantage of the multiple safety nets government keeps adding to its arsenal. They have relaxed the rules for who qualifies for these programs. They have extended the length of time people can qualify for these programs. And they have opened the door for abuse on so many levels. So how do people respond? They relax, make stupid decisions, get themselves in trouble . . then come running to the government for a bailout.

Does the government need to offer a safety net to certain people? Absolutely. Some people have needs that are so extreme and so beyond them that the government can be helpful (although it could be argued that a private non profit could serve that person better). But that is not what I am referring to here. I am speaking here about the purposeful shift to draw even more people into that fold, if for no other reason than to make people more dependent on government. When people become more dependent on government, they will more likely vote for the people who want to expand the list of goodies that government will hand out to the people. And that cycle perpetuates itself, growing government to a point where it is nearly impossible to trim it back.

Oh to hear officials tell people: you make bad decisions in your life . . too bad . . we will not rescue you. You will bear the costs for that, we will not burden the American people.