American Welfare State

Correction:

The people support the government, the government should not support the people.

The world’s idea of welfare doesn’t work. The only way it works without bankrupting countries is when people do it of their own free wills between individuals. Nobody wants to see anybody starve. It is a very pessimistic view of humanity to say that if the government doesn’t do it then nobody will. That’s just plain rude considering that I am a Christian and I try my best to give and be charitable.
Communism/Socialism is the greatest anti-Christ power in this world, according to David O McKay. With that in mind, please read Revelations Chp. 13, and see what we are in for under Marxism, and if you don’t know the theory of Marxism please google it. It includes disintegration of the family, replacement of all religions with statism (atheism that worships government), We’re on our way swiftly there by way of the welfare programs that are being called “great.” It’s SCARY that any Mormon would think that the programs of the devil are great just because the deceived people that run them are not necessarily bad people. This is serious stuff!!!

By the way, social services is very different from welfare/ food stamps/ socialized health care, etc.

Jeremy- that’s a very interesting link, thank you.

I’m in the UK and have grown up under the welfare state, from the cradle to the grave, from free milk and vitamins as a child through healthcare free at point of delivery to the prospect of an old age pension awaiting me. IMHO, Satan’s plan is not the welfare state but was what we had before- people unable to see a doctor and dying unnecessarily from minor ailments which weren’t treated through lack of means, middle aged women wearing nappies because they had no access to surgery, needless child mortality and elderly who should have been with their families longer, dying far too early.

To fund this welfare state I pay less in contributions from my wage packet each month than I pay in tithing. And if I don’t like it, I have the freedom to vote out any high taxing government.

Personally, I am more than content to make contributions each month knowing my fellow citizens aren’t starving, and gain reassurance in the knowledge if I fall on hard times, a safety net is in place for me. Healthcare and welfare benefits – ie life and death of men, women and children-are too important an issue to be left entirely to the whims of others who may or may not feel like contributing to charity each month.

I don’t know whether private charity is truly more efficient than government programs, but I don’t think there’s any question that they are more far reaching. If we depended on private charity for all social programs, far fewer people could be helped. I sincerely doubt that if we got rid of all government welfare programs, that all of a sudden people would give all, or even a significant portion, of the money collected in taxes for welfare to private charities.

First and foremost I would like to point out that despite the rhetoric, most welfare goes not to the poor and needy, or even the poor and lazy (as those on the right like to characterize them), but to the wealthiest segments of American society. This comes in numerous ways such as subsidies to giant corporations, financial institutions and corporate agriculture, but also comes in the form of tax breaks for the affluent. On top of this, the large majority of “redistribution” of wealth gets redistributed away from the people and pumped into our bloated military industrial complex.

Yes, bureaucrats will and always have been wasteful, dishonest, and corrupt, and although the US has made great headway in this area, there is still much work to do. However, private capital wishes to convince Americans that the answer is to do away with the progress that has made America a great place for the average person to live. They want us to forget that before welfare, social security, labor laws, environmental regulations, monopoly laws, consumer protection regulations, etc, that the vast majority of Americans lived in third world conditions. They want us to forget that people literally starved to death in the US before the introduction of welfare. They want us to forget that the elderly, the mentally disabled, and the handicapped were left to fend for themselves prior to social security. They want us to forget that workers had to work 12 hours days with no benefits, meager subsistence wages in dangerous working conditions with no disability insurance if they were injured or maimed. They want us to forget that it was only after people like Mother Jones marched hundreds of crippled and maimed children into Washington DC that private industry was forced to end child exploitation and child labor and forced to stop lying to the American public that child labor was not a problem. They want us to forget that they fought tooth and nail against public libraries, and public schools. Since they could afford to educate themselves and their children, they saw no need in their money being collected to do away with ignorance for masses. They also want us to forget about the unsanitary and horrid conditions that private industry created prior to environmental regulations (in fact, the entire city of Chicago had to be raised because the filth poured into Lake Michigan turned the city into a pit of disease and filth for all those that could not afford to live outside the city, or at least away from the filth).

The problem with private industry is that there is little to no democratic controls, and what little control the people do have over private industry, they wish to destroy. This nonsense about the market regulating private industry is just untrue. The market may be able to regulate itself when we are talking about small mom and pop business, but not when we are talking institutions so large and so money heavy that they have greater control over governance than any private individual.

We know from experience that having no government regulations whatsoever has lead to horrible consequences. We know that a purely statist solution has failed as well (USSR for instance). In my opinion, it is not hard to maintain the freedoms that arise from capitalism while either doing away with or alleviating the side effects, or in other words, the terrible costs capitalism inflicts on the disadvantaged portions of society. This is where welfare systems come in. I think it is unfair and misleading to call a society a “welfare state” simply because social services are there to help those who need them. Is Salt Lake City a “welfare state” because they have a fire department? or because they have a police department? what about a water district, sewer services, public libraries, parks and recreation? No! Is the US a “welfare state” because they provide social security to the elderly, the mentally disabled, and the handicapped? Will we become a “welfare state” simply because we decide that healthcare should not be determined by how big one’s wallet is? I don’t think so.

I’ve already gone on and on here, so I’ll wrap it up, provide some sources for anyone that is willing to actually take my point of view into consideration, and throw a few quotes out there (I noticed others have been throwing out some rather onesided quotes already and my guess is they are trying to make the impression that the Church is in fact partisan, simply because SOME of it’s leaders have agreed with their position on this issue…emphasis on the word SOME). The last point I wanted to make is that charity is thrown around alot in these discussions. In my opinion, charity is helping someone when it is not necessary. However, when someone is literally starving, dying, etc. then helping is not a charitable act, it is a humane act. If someone had a hatchet stuck in their skull, I wouldn’t be patting myself on the back about how charitable I was because I chose to drive them to the hospitable. It’s not like mowing an older persons lawn. The same is true of social services. It is literally providing the minimal amount of assistance to ensure people aren’t dying or going hungry simply because they are poor, disadvantaged, or unable to meet their most basic needs on their own. There is plenty of opportunity to act charitably without leaving peoples lives in the balance, so let’s not confuse charity with simply being a nation that treats it’s citizens as human beings. Nations that are much poorer than ours have lower infant mortality rates, their citizens don’t file bankruptcy because of medical costs, they have decreased their crime rates, find no need to incarcerate large percentages of their populations, etc. If they can treat their citizens humanely, why are we fighting against doing so ourselves?

“There is only one thing in man’s world that can offer any check on the unlimited power of money and that is government. That is why money always accuses government of trying to destroy free agency, when the great enslaver has always been money itself.”
-quoted from Hugh Nibley’s essay “Beyond Politics”

Mosiah 29:26
“Now it is not common that the voice of the people desireth anything contrary to that which is right; but it is common for the lesser part of the people to desire that which is not right; therefore this shall ye observe and make it your law—to do your business by the voice of the people.”

“The experience of mankind has shown that the people of communities and nations among whom wealth is the most equally distributed, enjoy the largest degree of liberty, are the least exposed to tyranny and oppression and suffer the least from luxurious habits which beget vice.”
“One of the great evils with which our own nation is menaced at the present time is the wonderful growth of wealth in the hands of a comparatively few individuals. The very liberties for which our fathers contended so steadfastly and courageously, and which they bequeathed to us as a priceless legacy, are endangered by the monstrous power which this accumulation of wealth gives to a few individuals and a few powerful corporations. By its seductive influence results are accomplished which, were it more equally distributed, would be impossible under our form of government. It threatens to give shape to the legislation, both State, and National, of the entire country. If this evil should not be checked, and measures not taken to prevent the continued enormous growth of riches among the class already rich, and the painful increase of destitution and want among the poor, the nation is likely to be overtaken by disaster; for, according to history, such a tendency among nations once powerful was the sure precursor of ruin.”
-Quoted from a pamphlet distributed by the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve in 1875 to promote the Church’s cooperative ventures. The entire text can be found in volume two of “The Messages of the First Presidency” which, although being out of print, can be easily purchased through Amazon and other online book sellers.

Sophie said:
“if you don’t know the theory of Marxism please google it. It includes disintegration of the family, replacement of all religions with statism (atheism that worships government)”

If it is possible to oversimplify something as complex as Marxism, than I don’t know how. It is almost as misinformed and twisted as an anti-Mormon saying “Mormons believe Joseph Smith was more important than Christ. Just google “Mormonism’ and you will read all sorts of accurate information on the subject”. Ridiculous!

Marx’s theories were complex and covered a whole array of topics from economics, to political structure, to philosophy and religion. In fact, they are so complex that there are almost as many interpretations and parties that have stemmed from his ideas as there are Christian religions and churches that have stemmed from the New Testament.

If people want to become informed on just what Marxism is, they should read what he had to say from his own writings. Taking a quote out of context here, or a quote out of context there is not the proper way to learn about anything, whether it be Mormonism or Marxism.

In reference to the “Proclomation on the Economy” I was very clear not to make that misrepresentation and did not call it by that name as others have. I even included where one can actually read the unedited pamphlet in it’s entirety. I will quickly quote myself here to show just what I mean:

“Quoted from a pamphlet distributed by the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve in 1875 to promote the Church’s cooperative ventures. The entire text can be found in volume two of “The Messages of the First Presidency” which, although being out of print, can be easily purchased through Amazon and other online book sellers.”

The important thing to point out is that the text stands on it’s own, and I agree with Card that editing takes more away from it and than anything else.

As to the idea that welfare and social services were based on ideology and religious convictions, I strongly agree. This is not just my opinion, but I feel it a historical fact and closely ties into what was called “the Social Gospel”. The Social Gospel was a religious movement in America that involved religious people looking at the gospel as more than a her-after thing, but as something that should inspire a more just here and now. The Social Gospel was promulgated by such people as Jane Addams, Dorothy Day, Henry George, and Edward Bellamy (whose utopian socialist novel “Looking Backward” was written after visiting Utah and talking with Lorenzo Snow about the Church’s cooperative ventures…see the book “American Moses” and even the Church’s own publication “Church Histoy in the Fulness of Times”).

I highly doubt that those who advocated assistance for the poor, the needy, and the disadvantaged were sitting in a dark corner, rubbing their hands together and laughing menacingly as the Murray Rothbard seems to imply when he says the following:

“Among the economic interests promoted by the burgeoning welfare state were two in particular. One was a growing legion of educated (and often overeducated) intellectuals, technocrats, and the “helping professions” who sought power, prestige, subsidies, contracts, cushy jobs from the welfare state, and restrictions of entry into their field via forms of licensing. The second was groups of big businessmen who, after failing to achieve monopoly power on the free market, turned to government — local, state, and federal — to gain it for them.”

To claim that labor unions were an effect and not a cause of the social services enacted in the early 1900′s is incorrect in my opinion. I hold this opinion for several reasons. First, the labor movement existed long before it was legalized in the early 1900′s when these social services were enacted. Anyone ever heard of the Pullman Strike? how about the Molly McGuires? Even back then they were clamouring for labor laws, unemployment insurance, disability insurance, health and safety regulations, shorter work days and higher wages. What the New Deal and other social services did though, was make organizing or belonging to a union a much less deadly practice (no more being mowed down by national guards or Pinkerton Security agents…at least not openly).

I do think, however, that once businessmen and capitalists realized that social services were going to be enacted whether they were involved or not, they did jump in and used their influence to steer those reforms in a direction that was much less radical than what the people wanted and more conducive to their own interests.

Anyway, I also wanted to post a link to a great article written in the Mormon Worker. The article is about how the US welfare system was based on the Church’s welfare system:

http://www.themormonworker.org/articles/issue6/the-gospel-of-redistribution.php

The thing about a counterfeit is that it has to be so close to the truth, or possess just enough truth that it can pass as being the same thing or extremely similar. The problem is that many conservative members have a tendency to call communism a counterfeit but then attack all the correct principles along with the incorrect. A classless society where there are no poor and no rich; true principle. A society where religion has been entirely abandoned; incorrect principle. I wouldn’t say “A classless society is just as heretical as a society that entirely abandons religion and spirituality,” simply because an ideology that opposes religion embraces the idea of a classless society. How’s that saying go about not throwing the baby out with the bathwater?

Whatever you think about Marx’s ideas, he was right on several things. First, that money is not always in circulation as Adam Smith and others theorized in a capitalist society, since the wealthy can take their money out of circulation and let it accumulate. Second, that as capitalism develops, wealth and the means of production become more and more centralized into fewer and fewer hands. Third, that as fewer and fewer people control the means of production, the population will be made up more and more of proletariats (in other words, more and more people will become workers..employees dependent on someone else for their daily bread).

Also, the article I linked to in my last post was not the one I thought it was, although it is still a good read. What I was looking for was an article I’d read about the Church’s involvement in advising the government on their welfare program during the New Deal. If I locate it again, I’ll be sure to post it and clear up any confusion I may have caused from my last post.

John stated: “The thing about a counterfeit is that it has to be so close to the truth, or possess just enough truth that it can pass as being the same thing or extremely similar.”

To which I reply: That may be true, but both Marion G. Romney and Ezra Taft Benson used the term “counterfeit” to refer to Communism. Here’s the quote:

“Communism is Satan’s counterfeit for the gospel plan, and . . . it is an avowed enemy of the God of the land. Communism is the greatest Anti-Christ power in the world today and therefore the greatest menace not only to our peace but to our preservation as a free people.”

Well, I think I might be coming across as the resident Communist or something, and so I want to clarify something:
I am not a Communist.
Now that I’ve cleared that up, I do want to point out that although I am not a Communist, I do think Marx had some good ideas…along with some bad ideas yes, but nevertheless, I agree with Brigham Young that truth, even when found in Hell, belongs to Mormonism since our religion embraces all truth.

What I don’t like is lists pointing out how “Communist” we are becoming. Besides, I don’t think it’s the end goal of communism that is false (a classless society where equality and brotherhood have made government unnecessary and where each contributes according his ability, and recieves according to his need). I am more of the school of thought that the Bolshevik’s methods, tactics and theories about achieving such a lofty goal were what was out of whack. This is why I don’t shriek in horror when people make lists about how much closer we are to enacting legislation similar to what Communists sought (“Oh no! Universal healthcare and education! Run for your lives!”) Instead, I think to myself “Great! Unlike the Soviet Union, North Korea and China, we were able to achieve a society that cares for the poor, the needy, the sick, and the disadvantaged through peaceful and democratic means, rather than through state police, torture, terror, and violence. Good for us, and in your face Bolshevik’s!”

As to item 1 in Greg’s post, the main point I was trying to make is that Rothbard seems to be making quite an assumption. It is clear from the quote and the language he uses that he dislikes those who supported government social services (I hesitate to refer to it as the “welfare state” as I don’t think minimal services to help those in need qualifies as being a “welfare state”). For instance, he starts out by taking a jab and calling them “overeducated”. Is it possible to be overeducated? Should we just educate ourselves a little bit and then hold back when we become too knowledgable? Anyway, he then goes on to attribute motives to these “intellectuals and technocrats” that are entirely negative, as if he could read minds. Desire to end misery and affliction? Of course not, they must have just been looking for cushy government jobs right? Wanting to alleviate the ills of poverty? Why, that would be ridiculous, since Rothbard apparently knows that these Americans (who often made great sacrifices) were just in it for sinister reasons.

I find it hard to swallow, even if I try to avoid Rothbard’s contemptuous tone and obvious bias.

As to point 2 from Greg’s post, I do not disagree that business and private capital tried as hard as possible to use government to achieve their needs. In fact, this was a common complaint from the left about the New Deal and FDR’s administration. They felt the needed reforms were being hijacked by big business and private capital. It’s like a sailor using a gust of wind to his advantage. The sailor knows he can do nothing about the gust of wind, and fighting against it could destroy him and his ship. Instead, the sailor steers his vessel just right so that he can use the gust to his advantage. It is my opinion that much like the sailor, business knew that they couldn’t go on fighting against the “gust” of reforms…reforms such as the right to organize, health and safety regulations to protect workers, shorter workdays, better wages, etc. They had spent plenty of time violently opposing these reforms for decades, but now the public wasn’t standing for it anymore and there were even threats of revolution if something didn’t change. So what did they do? They turn their sails and steered the reforms. So instead of social security kicking in when most workers retired, they raised the age to above the average lifespan of a worker. Does that mean social security was a bad idea? No, it just means the benefit of a social security system, instead of being non-existent, at least covered those who lived beyond the age requirements.

So what am I saying? I’m saying that despite business’ involvement in shaping the welfare system, America was still better off then they were before social services ever existed.

Now bullet number 3: I do think communism and capitalism have much more in common then their adherents like to admit. Also, I wouldn’t lump socialism with communism (socialism is a broad term and I think lumping it with communism simply because they are both left-wing ideologies is just as misleading as me lumping fascism and corporate capitalism, two right-wing ideologies). For example, while giving lip service to the workers, the Soviet Union ended up just replacing the capitalists with the state (which China is doing now I might add). Although there were great improvements compared to life under the Czar, and the early years of the Soviet Union were quite successful, the workers were not much nearer to owning the means of production in the USSR then they were under the capitalists.

As for me personally, I agree with Martin Luther King Jr. “Communism forgets that life is individual. Capitalism forgets that life is social. And the kingdom of brotherhood is found neither in the thesis of communism nor the antithesis of capitalism, but in a higher synthesis. It is found in a higher synthesis that combines the truths of both.”

I think there are some great examples of this “higher synthesis”. Sweden, Norway, and Finland have done quite well in this area. Other countries have done well also, although not a progressive as the Scandinavian nations, these include Germany, Israel, France, Canada, Spain, and others. I would love to go into this more some time, but I’m already staying up late just to address the above post.

Okay, here we go. Now I’m addressing number 4. I think Marion G. Romney makes some good points…after all, the United Order is not socialism. Socialism is an economic and political theory whereas the United Order is a religious institution. I don’t think Catholics want the government run like a monestary, even if their religious beliefs tell them it’s a better way to live with each other. The same is true of the United Order. However, I think this talk was very much influenced by Romney’s own politics, the political environment of that time period, as well as the fact that historically Mormons were considered politically, economically, and socially radical (in fact, it’s not uncommon to come across the word “Communist” and “Socialist” being used by anti-Mormons in the early history of the Church, and the term was used specifically as a bad word much the same it is today by people like Glenn Beck or Rush Limbaugh). Let’s not forget that Utah was one of the first states to have a strong Socialist Party. Not only that, but Apostle Moses Thatcher had come out in favor of socialism, the Church had been almost a tourist trap for early European socialists interested in the Church’s cooperative communities like Brigham City, and Edward Bellamy’s bestselling socialist book slash pamphlet was known to be inspired by his visit to Utah and late night talks with Lorenzo Snow. None of this made the Church look good during the McCarthy era, when everything even remotely left of center was being attacked as “unAmerican”.

Number 5: Yes, the “Mormon Worker” was inspired by Dorothy Day’s “The Catholic Worker” and issue number one explains in further detail.

Number 6: Although I’d like to say I thought out my comparison between Ayn Rand and Rothbard in detail, I can’t claim that. The connection I was making was just this; Rothbard and Rand both want their readers to just assume that those who favor social services and government regulation are a bunch of “do gooders” who are secretly and solely motivated by such sinister things as power, prestige, and “cushy government jobs”, and so and so on. As I made clear earlier in this post, I think this is the equivalent of an atheist telling people that religious individuals are motivated to do good not because they have the Spirit or have developed charity, but because they just want to get into heaven or avoid hell.

And lastly, number 8. I think Keynes was a jerk, and it’s not like he even tried to cover this up. Has anyone ever read his writings? He pretty says openly that those in power should use inflation as a sort of secret tax. Anyway, I think the Fed, along with the financial industry in general, are certainly going to promote the interests of the wealthy over everyone else. After all, do they make money off of poor people or rich? I wouldn’t want to debate the Fed however, as I don’t feel educated on the subject well enough to do it justice. I’ll leave that for others. However, I will say that when Joseph Smith ran for President of the United States, his platform included a national bank that he believed the government should operate which would be accountable to the people through representative democracy. He believed a national bank was necessary to protect Americans from the abuses of a private financial industry.

I hope I answered and responded to everything here. I’ve got an 11 day old son, a full time job, am attending a university currently and just bought a new house. Pulling myself away to write this was quite a task, so I hope my response is sufficient as I probably will be backing off for a little while.

If anyone is interested in reading more about my perspective on politics and religion, I have written two articles for the LDS Left newsletter and corresponding blog. One is about Ezra Taft Benson and the trouble his political opinions stirred within the Church, and the other is a satirical piece where I point out that the Church has quite a few troubling things in it’s history if someone wants to believe the Church is and always has been economically conservative. Below are the links for anyone interested. Oh, and sorry about any typos, I’m too tired to go back, reread my post, and make adjustments…what you get is what you get.

The satirical article:
http://theldsleft.blogspot.com/2009/09/screwtape-letter-on-mormon-politics-by.html

The article on Benson:
http://theldsleft.blogspot.com/2009/09/ezra-taft-benson-end-of-all-political.html