Thinking back over this last election, and what we have seen so far, one thing continuing to stick in my mind is how many people want the government to provide them services or funds for any number of reasons. Some of those reasons may seem more significant than others: failing businesses, unable to work (mental or physical), unable to make ends meet, and so forth. I'm not going to sit here and try to say whether one reason is more important than the other, as that's really not my place. No one gave me the authority or power to say 'that's a good enough reason for assistance', or 'that's not a good enough reason'.
The whole discussion reminds me of a story I read about Davy Crockett, when he served as a representative from the state of Tennessee. As it is told, in a speech he talks about making the rounds in his district in preparation for re-election. He meets up with a farmer, and after the usual discussion about crops and weather, asks the farmer if he will support his re-election. The farmer tells him no, and when asked why, the farmer explains it is because in his mind, Davy Crockett forgot the constitution and the limited powers it entailed. Where did the farmer get this idea? From Crockett's support of a bill to give money to families affected by a fire in Georgetown, Virginia. The bottom line of the speech given and the story was to serve as a reminder to Congress and the country at large that the government is not supposed to be in the business of giving money to people, charitable or not. If we cannot wrap our minds around this principle, then we have gone very far afield from the principles on which our nation was founded.
There is a second story or saying that this reminds me of. It has been attributed to many different authors, but its' message is particularly timely: "A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until a majority of voters discover that they can vote themselves largess out of the public treasury." This has been attributed to people from Benjamin Franklin to Alexander Tytler, a scottish lawyer. It really doesn't matter who spoke or wrote it. I think it casts a dark shadow on how our fallen nature can corrupt governments conceived under the best of intentions.
The title of this post refers to the concept that 'there is no such thing as a free lunch'. All the money being given to banks and other industries have to come from somewhere. Someone has to put the money up for all these programs and such. I don't believe the average American has any concept of borrowing and credit and so forth. Banks and other companies dealing in credit provide the money we 'charge' to buy all those things we think we need. Sooner or later, we need to pay them back. If we don't there are consequences. Those consequences can vary from garnishing our wages to pay the debt, to the ruination of our ability to obtain credit through collection or bankruptcy.
Proverbs 22:7 states: 'The rich ruleth over the poor, and the borrower is servant to the lender.' The government seems to have picked up on the principle behind this verse and we are starting to see evidence of their applying the principle to industries they have given money to: banks given money to stabilize their situation during the credit crisis last fall who don't need it anymore aren't being allowed to give it back to the government. Is it because the government wants to control the operation of the banks? We can't say right now. We saw last week General Motors CEO Rick Wagoner forced from his post by the White House. Is this the beginning of government control over the American automobile industry? It's still a little early at this point. One thing we should keep in mind is many of us have received money from the government in some way, shape or form. School lunches, welfare for the poor, farming subsidies. These are some examples of 'free' money from the government. These programs are not free, but are paid by taxes. If you think about many of these programs, there are conditions attached in order to receive the money. Those conditions are the recipients' 'payment'. The bottom line for those who receive theses 'benefits' are we are now 'servants' of the government and we must do what they say. Some of us are happy servants, some are not. But until people learn to quit borrowing we will continue to be servants to the lenders. If you accept government funding be prepared to pay, and not just in money.
I guess what I am trying to put across in my own feeble method is: when we start asking our government to provide things for us, we are in grave danger of morphing our government into something other than a democracy (which people seem to think it is) or a representative republic (which is the actual design).
No comments:
Post a Comment