Welfare: Entitled To Nothing


Saturdays here on Running in My Head are what I call “Uncensored Saturdays” in that I write what I really feel about a particular subject with no regard for tact or certain types of political correctness.

You may not like my point of view.

You may find what I have to say offensive.

And that’s fine.

However, I hope they won’t make you feel less of me or cause you to stop reading my blog on the “creative” days.

See something you don’t like, disagree with, or think I’ve got totally wrong?

Great! Leave a comment; let’s start a discussion.

I consider myself both educated and open-minded. I know why I believe what I do, yet I’m not so stuck-in-the-mud to consider other opinions or the fact I might be wrong.

Ten years ago, I was an authoritarian-leaning Republican; now I’m a centrist independent leaning mainly conservative or libertarian depending on the issue.

That change didn’t come about on its own, it came about because I was willing to listen to others with opposing views.

I’d like to think I still have that open mind.

I only ask you keep the conversation civil.

With that in mind, here we go:

I enjoy watching House of Cards on Netflix.

Now, I could never vote for Frank Underwood; however, in Season Three he gave a speech which resonated with me:

In the full clip, Underwood uses this as a springboard to launch a program even more ambitious than the New Deal – the very system of programs that created the problems he’s trying to fix.

Nevertheless, I agree with him on this point:

House of Cards Entitled to Nothing QuoteLike Henry David Thoreau (and possibly Thomas Jefferson), I am of the opinion that

the government is best which governs least

Now, I understand that government must tax in order to function. However, not all governmental functions are necessary, neither are they all the government’s responsibility.

According to the Preamble of the Constitution of the United States, the purpose of American government is to

1. form a more perfect Union

2. establish Justice

3. insure domestic Tranquility

4. provide for the common defence [sic]

5. promote the general Welfare

6. secure the Blessings of Liberty 
   to ourselves and our Posterity

I want to focus on No. 5, but feel I should briefly address the other 6; perhaps they’ll appear in future Uncensored Saturdays.

For better or worse, the form of the “more perfect Union” was decided on the battlefields of the Civil War. Personally, I feel our current system invested the central government with far too much power.

As a people, we’re still working on what, exactly, Justice means and how to adequately implement it. This means we’re also working on insuring Tranquility.

I think we’ve done a fair job on providing for the common defense; so long as the Second Amendment remains intact and SCOTUS decision in District of Columbia v Heller is strengthened and applied nationally.

With every attack on personal liberty in the name of diversity, safety, security, or some other intangible notion, we chip away at those Blessings of Liberty. Soon, we will have no Blessings to pass down.

Yes. I can see these will become fodder for future Uncensored Saturdays.

So many ideas!

Now, welfare is a tricky word whose meaning has changed over the years.

I cringe whenever I hear it.

Using That Word MemeWebster’s 1828 Dictionary of the English Language (the closest online dictionary to 1789 I could find) defines welfare as

Exemption from any unusual evil or calamity; the enjoyment of peace and prosperity, or the ordinary blessings of society and civil government; applied to states.

Now, I understand that even this definition can be interpreted many ways.

Nevertheless, I see in this definition no basis for such government programs as

Medicare / Medicaid

Food Stamps / SNAP


Social Security

AHA / Planned Parenthood

Before you jump all over me as a woman-hating Republican racist bigot, let’s clear a few things up:

1. Disagreeing with government programs does not equate with hating the people those programs benefit. It means I disagree with the nature of government. Go read some political theory then come back when you can carry on an intelligent conversation.

2. Disagreeing with certain government programs does not mean I think people shouldn’t have access to certain services. It means I think the government has no right or responsibility to either fund or run said programs. Most likely, I feel those services should be in the hands of the private sector.

3. Whoever said I was a Republican? I haven’t identified as a Republican since at least 2004. I’m a registered Independent who leans conservative/libertarian depending on the issue. Like any well-informed citizen of the United States, I refuse to believe that any political party hold all the answers to all the problems. I have never voted a straight party ticket, and I’ve voted for candidates from a wide variety of political parties.

Now let’s look at the programs I listed and I’ll tell you why, exactly, I am against them.

First, I am against the Affordable Healthcare Act for two reasons:

1. It only passed SCOTUS review in that it was interpreted as a kind of tax. As such, it is a tax on life. Too many people likened it to a driver’s license or car insurance, but this is a false equivocation. Only those who drive need a driver’s license or car insurance; the AHA applies to anyone living – it is essentially a tax on life.

2. As such, the AHA violates Article 1, Section 9 of the Constitution, which prohibits such taxes.

Along the same lines, I view the Sixteenth Amendment (Income Tax) as directly opposed to the original intent of the Constitution and blame the increasing liberal SCOTUS of the early 1900s for allowing its continuation.

The Seventeenth Amendment is the worst offender; the Senate was never supposed to represent the People, but the States. With direct election of senators, we may as well abolish the Senate since we already have a body representing the people: the House of Representatives.

3. The government should have no say in how I spend my money or what I spend my money on.

4. The AHA is not affordable; I find myself making too much for any real form of government assistance yet making to little to afford any insurance that would actually benefit my needs. Essentially, I’m paying for insurance which I’ll never use or meet the deductible – beyond a major catastrophe – just to avoid paying a tax penalty. The AHA has placed me in a worse financial situation that I was in before its passing.

Second, I find it well within government’s regulatory power to regulate the insurance and healthcare industries.

Simply forcing the American people onto insurance rolls has not lowered insurance prices, neither has it decreased hospital costs. If it were to regulate the healthcare industry, particularly the monstrosity known as the charge sheet, healthcare costs would come down. Since insurance companies traditionally pay a percentage of hospital costs based on the plan one has purchased, their overall costs would decrease and they could charge less for premiums. I’m not sure that they would without government intervention, but it would be easier for them to turn a profit.

TL;DR: Let the government regulate the business, not the people.

Third, were the government to take such steps, programs such as Medicare, Medicaid Food Stamps, SNAP, WIC, and CHIP could be reduced or outright eliminated.

Again, I’m not against access to affordable healthcare.

I am against government sticking its ever-growing nose and fingers in places where they don’t belong.

Fourth, I am against Social Security in that – again – the government has no business in taking taxes out of my paycheck to support someone else. The program is not a bank; politicians have made it clear they’ve used the money invested in the program, lost it, and it now relies on younger payers paying into the system to keep it going. How is this any different than a Ponzi Scheme? We’d have more economic security investing that money in a bank guaranteed by the FDIC. If Social Security were a bank, it’d have collapsed long ago.

Finally, I’ve already made it clear I’m against Planned Parenthood because I am against abortion. However, even those who support abortion ought to be outraged over its sale of human parts. Isn’t it a bit hypocritical to consider a fetus a “thing” before abortion yet classify a fetus as “human” after abortion? Isn’t killing a human being murder? The hoops they jump through for moral justification puts contortionists to shame.

Just because it’s legal doesn’t make it right.

Liberals use this arguments to clam certain moral superiorities and to justify attacks on certain conservative values.

When conservatives use the same argument, they are routinely labelled regressive moralistic bigots.

Furthermore, it’s been proven the so-called “services” (apart from abortion) they claim to provide are either (a) nonexistent at most Planned Parenthood facilities or (b) performed better and more often at other healthcare facilities. Again, why support a failing business?

As my speech teacher once said:

Stand Up. Speak Up. Shut Up.

Since I’ve run out of steam and have nothing more to say, I’ll turn it over to you in the comments.


Have a suggestion for a poem, photograph, or future post?

Drop a note in the prompt box!


Don’t forget to follow me on:

Facebook – where I share news stories, articles from other blogs, and various and sundry miscellany that happens to catch my eye. It’s stuff you won’t see here! Well, mostly.

Instagram – where I show you my Life in Motion and share quotes and such. The widget only shows my last three photographs – don’t you want to see them all?

Twitter – where you can see my thoughts in 140 characters or less. Also, funny retweets.

Website Powered by WordPress.com.

Up ↑

%d bloggers like this: