Monday, September 19, 2011

In Support of Government Balanced with Individual Prosperity

Finally, to my relief, someone has expressed an appreciation for government. In Paul Begala's article, "I (heart) Government," (Newsweek, September 19, 2011. http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2011/09/11/paul-begala-why-now-is-the-time-to-defend-big-government.html) he reminds us of how much good government has done for the country. However, it has been a continually popular stand in this country to think of our federal government as a force of ill, a contemporary "bogeyman."

I was first aware of the negative view of government during the Vietnam War and the "Communist or 'Red' Scare," when we as Americans were terrified with the idea that Communism, or the Communist form of Socialism would destroy the world. Completely ironically, the Soviet Union was in no shape to annihilate the United States or anyone else because the country was imploding, self-destructing. In more recent years, and currently, the fear of Socialism has been transferred from the Soviet Union (primarily because it no longer exists) to any domestic issue that is proposed for assistance by our own federal government. 

The reasons are several. First, some equate the Socialism of the Soviet Union and its failure as a strong example of how a centralized government can become autocratic and totalitarian under the posture of providing for the welfare of its citizens. Second, there is a steadfast belief in Capitalism, our form of government, that the only vehicle for true and deserved success is through individual hard work and financial gain. And third, there is a ugly mindset that feels that the poorest citizens deserve their lot in life because they brought poverty on themselves from a lack of exactly the initiative of the aforementioned hard work. The author Ayn Rand and Senator Paul Ryan (an outspoken disciple of Rand) were and are proponents of this view, respectively.

What they forget, however, is that not only is a country only as strong as its weakest citizenry, but that no individual is solely responsible for their own success with anything. To be successful one needs opportunity, and one only has opportunity in a country that is financially stable enough to have opportunities in which to participate. To take the stance that one's hard earned money should be left alone by their government is to completely forget that it was a stable government that allowed the individual to make the money in the first place. If one succeeds financially in a country that is stable enough to offer that success, one is obligated to pay a proper percentage of that gain back in taxes to the very government that allowed them to make the gain. This should be simple common sense and ethics. So the idea that the federal government would tax its wealthiest citizens more than its poorest is not only fair and equitable, it's practical, ethical, and makes complete financial sense. It would all but eliminate the problem of any serious national debt. Yes, there will always be some citizens who are lazy, indifferent, dependent financially and emotionally, and will always remain poor. But that is not the vast majority of people. Therefore, for any wealthy person to look upon a poor person with disdain or disgust and argue against being taxed fairly because of the few who are lazy, is a greater abomination in attitude than the attitude of the few who remain lethargic. It is simply inhumane and un-American.

Finally, Begala mentions several enormous accomplishments that would not have been possible without financial support from the federal government: the abolition of slavery, putting men on the moon, and the killing of Osama Bin Laden to name a few. The only thing I see that the detractors of government involvement in domestic issues are motivated by is self-centeredness and greed. It is greed in the guise of a warning against a possible dictatorship like the former Soviet Union. The remarkable and ironic thing is that many of these same detractors of government are the same that elected George W. Bush as president twice which put us on the brink of financial ruin and in the current recession. It was not too much governmental regulation, but too little (of the banks and Wall Street) that eliminated our balanced budget (achieved by the Clinton administration) and nearly turned a recession into another depression or worse. Government by itself is, of course, not the answer to all the problems facing a country. But neither is no government at all. How to skillfully balance government involvement with individual freedom is a delicate dance. However, contrary to how many of the voices in the Republican and Tea Parties continue to express themselves, government is also not the enemy. 

No comments:

Post a Comment