Move the cursor over the top menu to see topics. Choose a topic and click on it for a listing of multiple articles.

CALL THIS HATE SPEECH IF YOU WANT 25 Jan. 2016 PDF  | Print |  E-mail

CALL THIS HATE SPEECH IF YOU WANT

25 Jan. 2016

Dear Friends and Patriots,

Yesterday I was tuned in to WNO, listening to a discussion I thought was about the VITA program.  Somehow, though, the conversation had very little to do with VITA.

VITA stands for Volunteer Income Tax Assistance, and is a government sponsored program to coordinate knowledgeable volunteers in aiding people at tax time.  You see VITA booths at malls and elsewhere.  It’s not a bad program.  A lot of retired IRS people volunteer to help people figure out how to do their annual returns.  I don’t have a problem with that at all.  If we have to do tax returns, a little help never hurts.  Lots of folks can’t understand IRS pubs or their return instructions.  Lots more can’t afford tax accountants.  It’s all good.

What’s not good was the VITA person who was leading the discussion.  She began by discussing the Earned Income Credit (EIC) and what a great thing it is.   She stated that everyone should see if they qualify for an EIC deduction.  Many, many more people qualify than actually claim it.  She started out stating that many people get the taxes they paid returned to them by claiming EIC.  A bit later she did say that even if a person doesn’t work, assuming they are otherwise qualified, they should still file a tax return and claim the EIC because it could pay them $6,000 just for signing their name.  She declared it a “wonderful method to redistribute income to those who really need it.”  Really?  How is it so wonderful?  How does the IRS determine financial need?  People may not work, but does that necessarily equate to financial need?

Another thing the lady said several times that got my attention was, “People deserve this money and they should file and claim it.”  Evidently the federal government decides who needs and who is deserving.  Something’s just not right about all this.

If you’re poor and poorly educated, and someone working for the federal government tells you an entitlement is “wonderful” and that you “deserve” to benefit, what do you think you’re opinion of it might be?  Do you think the choice of words to characterize the redistributionist aspects of the program makes a difference in the perceptions of potential recipients?  If a government representative used negative terms to describe a benefit, do you think a potential recipient might approach it differently?  These are questions that bear thought and answers.

In my own opinion entitlements create psychological handicaps.  The fact that people are getting benefits for striving less, or for being less, or for having habits that guarantee less is certain to have a psychological effect on the recipients.  If a person can hold out their hand and demand “what’s rightfully their due,” many will do just that.  Even further, many will think of those who refuse to hold out their hands as saps and suckers.  They will accept their reduced standard of living as a reasonable trade-off for their unemployment.  That acceptance is what psychological dependency is all about.

You may ask, “Do you look down on the poor?”  No, I don’t.  I don’t look down on anyone.  But, I loathe a system designed to reward sloth, ignorance, and bad judgement.  I have no problem with the part of the system set up to provide security and financial independence to those of lesser capability, whether that condition is a function of genetics, accident, age, or disease.  We all understand there are those among us who are incapable of meaningful contribution to society, and no one begrudges them assistance.  I also have no problem with temporary, emergency assistance.   But, those are minor segments of entitlement recipients.  The greater parts are capable people, mostly those who have been psychologically conditioned to believe their handouts are “normal,” and that anyone would take if they could qualify.

Our vast federal entitlement system is a prison.  It’s a prison of the mind and spirit.  Because we live in a society that’s politically correct we can’t safely discuss such things, except within groups of like-minded people.  That’s part of the crime of all this.  Capable people are psychologically trapped in a system with too little hope of, or even will to escape, and most of us can’t directly address it.   Yes, this is a crime, yet no one will ever go to jail for it.

The money to pay for all of it is in the non-discretionary budget – those programs have to be funded.   The legislation that created most entitlement programs has language that makes them mandatory in perpetuity, while defense spending is not.  Think of it like this, the major mandatory function of government, according to the Constitution, is defense of the nation, yet in the budget it’s not a mandatory funding element.  It’s discretionary.

Does any of this sound upside down to you?  If so, then you understand English the same way I do.  Those who are within “the system” may not.  They listen to a different language, the language of bureaucracy, where “wonderful,” “deserve,” and “your rights” mean something different than we commonly understand.

Progressives created this system.  It’s time to do something about it.  It’s time to reject progressivism and stop imprisoning peoples’ minds for the sake of power and political gain?

Actually, it’s way past time.

In Liberty,
Steve