The Cost of Progressive Ideals

As has previously been mentioned, I am currently writing a research paper on Progressivism. Although I am taking a general approach to flushing out some of my ideas through this blog, I won’t post my paper until after it is graded. I would hate for the graders to do a Google search and find my own paper, on my own blog, and think I plagiarized it. That being said, I think I will just throw out some similar ideas to the ones I am incorporating into the paper and flush them out a bit here.

One of the tenants of Progressivism is to use the general rally cry of war to further social causes and attempt to treat social ills. In their early days they discovered that nothing rallied a nation together as the cry of war. It allows the government to access the great resources of the nation to push towards a common goal. At that point in history, people didn’t look to the national government to help cure social ills. They rightly felt it was the responsibility of their local community to address any social problems that may arise (poverty, crime, etc.).

With the above strategy in mind, Progressives set out to cure the modern social ills of the day. Their first major success in getting the nation to agree on the solution of a problem was met with prohibition. Progressive politicians with the help of pressure put on the U.S. Senate from the Temperance Movement passed the 18th Amendment on January 16, 1919 and it took effect a year later. We can see that “The Noble Experiment” although well intentioned was a failure in the end. It was repealed by the ratification of the 21st Amendment on December 5, 1933. If you doubt Prohibition failed to have the effect they intended, remember the decade in which it was active has been dubbed “The Roaring 20’s.” It was a time when bootleg licker and speakeasy’s were the norm for many cities.

The Temperance Movement was the first social “war” against anything. As you move through the history of the 20th century you can see other wars; the war on poverty, the war on drugs, and the war on terror are just a few. To get a look at the modern cost of one of these “wars”, let’s take a look at the War on Poverty.

Welfare spending has grown enormously since President Johnson declared a war on poverty in 1964. For our analysis we will look at means-tested welfare; aid that provides assistance deliberately and exclusively to poor and lower-income people. The examples would be food stamps, public housing, Medicaid, and Temporary Assistance for Needy Families. Although this all works towards a noble cause, it puts much more of a strain on the nation than if these issues were handled in our local communities.

The data discussed is from a Heritage Foundation report published this morning by Robert Rector, Katherine Bradley, Rachel Sheffield, and Helen DeVos. On average, welfare spending comes out to about $7,000 per year for each poor person or $28,000 for a low income family of four. When President Johnson started the war on poverty, means-tested welfare spending was 1.2% of GDP. In FY 2008 it reached 5% of GDP. This is obviously a significant increase. If total means-tested welfare spending were given to those below the poverty line in cash, the amount spent would equal 4 times the amount needed to bring these families above the poverty line.

Why do they not just give the families cash and save the taxpayer some money? It comes down to control. Remember that progressives believe that the people are either too stupid to know what is best for them or too selfish to do what would be in the best interest of their community, or in their view, the nation. If they just gave the cash to the poor, at some point they might not be as dependant on the state to fulfill the needs that some of those programs fill. For instance, if someone had the money to choose where they wanted to live, why would they want to live in a government housing project? Another component is public opinion. If the average taxpayer discovered the government was giving these people cash, they would demand accountability and an end to those people being on the government dole. They would demand these people pick themselves up and improve their own situation. If that were the case, the progressive elements in the government would lose their influence over a substantial portion of their voting bloc.

“Since 1964, the government has spent $15.9 trillion (in inflation-adjusted 2008 dollars) on means-tested welfare. In comparison, the cost of all other wars in U.S. history was $6.4 trillion (in inflation-adjusted 2008 dollars).” I really can’t see the “progress” touted in this “war” nor can I see any potential sign of victory in the near future if this particular “war” is continued in the manner as it is now. That is because progressives believe that everything should be “fair.” You have to redistribute the wealth of others to those that don’t have as much.

Speaking of “spreading the wealth,” “Under President Obama, government will spend more on welfare in a single year than President George W. Bush spent on the war in Iraq during his entire presidency. According to the Congressional Research Service, the cost of the Iraq war through the end of the Bush Administration was around $622 billion. By contrast, annual federal and state means-tested welfare spending will reach $888 billion in FY 2010. Federal welfare spending alone will equal $697 billion in that year.”

There is a quote penned by Adrian Rogers in 1931 that has gained a lot of traction recently by those concerned with spending on this particular war.

“You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving. No government can give anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that my dear friend, is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it.”

For a great breakdown of what it means to be poor in America, read this additional article by Mr. Rector that reveals these stunning facts:

Nearly 40 percent of all poor households actu­ally own their own homes. On average, this is a three-bedroom house with one-and-a-half baths, a garage, and a porch or patio.

Eighty-four percent of poor households have air conditioning. By contrast, in 1970, only 36 percent of the entire U.S. population enjoyed air conditioning.

Nearly two-thirds of the poor have cable or satellite TV.

Only 6 percent of poor households are over­crowded; two-thirds have more than two rooms per person.

The typical poor American has as much or more living space than the average individual living in most European countries. (These comparisons are to the average citizens in foreign countries, not to those classified as poor.)

Nearly three-quarters of poor households own a car; 31 percent own two or more cars.

Ninety-eight percent of poor households have a color television; two-thirds own two or more color televisions.

Eighty-two percent own microwave ovens; 67 percent have a DVD player; 73 percent have a VCR; 47 percent have a computer.

As a closing thought, consider the following statement from Benjamin Franklin.

“I am for doing good to the poor, but...I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. I observed...that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became richer.”

As noted, one of the major “wars” launched by progressives failed and things were sent back to how they were, and another is failing miserably. Be careful for their next war which appears to be the War on Obesity. I don’t believe they will all out ban certain things, but I do believe they will attempt to regulate these items in a way to make them more costly; therefore “nudging” us away from them. Progressives may be good at the touchy feely, but their basic ideas and beliefs work to strip away the freedoms we have for the benefit of the all knowing state.