Quote:
Originally posted by Tim Hancock
Shaun, you are correct that it sounds a little harsh, but I truly feel we have too many social programs and that they just have not been proven to help anything. In fact, I think the programs actually make matters worse instead of better. They promote a lifestyle of dependency on others. Surely there are cases where help is warranted, but as a whole I think less is more. I do help others, but I do so when I feel it is appropriate.
If you went down to the local "hood" and you gave someone $50 that claimed that they needed it for food, are you confident that they would use it for food or do you think that it would the equivalent of lighting it on fire? My guess is that you and I would have opposite answers to this question. (not that there is any thing wrong with differing views)
|
We probably agree that social programs which are not working should be dumped. We agree that teaching someone to fish is better than giving them a fish. I wonder if we agree that giving them a fish is less expensive, and if there are a lot of hungry ones and limited resources, then a fishing-instruction program for all those people would not be feasible. In other words, I notice that with social programs, the most effective ones (fishing instruction) are more expensive, but that the resources provided are not enough to even do it wrong (give everyone a fish).
Also, Washington State has for fifteen years been doing its best to SQUEEZE money out of the budget. Programs have been abandoned. Administrative costs have been critically evaluated. Even the Republicans, as a group, are reporting that there are no more "efficiencies" to be found (as an alternative to taxes). We're as lean as we can be, even according to the testimony of the conservatives....and we've got a $2.2 billion budges shortfall, while our roads continue to deteriorate and university enrollment falls because of lack of funding.