Put Up or Shut Up

Amid the cacophony of “smaller government...less spending” the New York Times recently ran two articles dealing with who, in fact, receives any kind of assistance from the government. One dealt with financial demographics (lower, middle, and upper income brackets) while the other concentrated on a political breakdown. While I usually avoid going over ground already plowed, I’d like to take a closer look at who, politically-speaking, reaps rewards from so-called social programs.

Many opponents of federal assistance have united under the Tea Party banner. They appear regularly on the airwaves or in print and their message is consistent: get the government out of my life, let me take care of myself, and lower my taxes. We’re each afforded our opinion and this one has taken center-stage as the Republican Party seeks a nominee for the fall election.

Call me old fashioned, or naive perhaps, but it seems to me that anyone opposing these assistance programs would be the last one to sign up for any of them. After all, we know the difference between talking the talk and walking the walk. It turns out that many of these full throated “leave me alone” folks do, indeed, sip from the governmental trough while other same-minded folks gulp down every bit that might be available. Talk about mixed messages!

There are two possible explanations for such a dichotomy between philosophy and behavior. One is hypocrisy and the other is ignorance. I’m not crazy about hypocrites, but ignorance scares the hell out of me. Especially when applying it to the electorate.

I’ve written about folks who want to take someone else’s freebie away while protecting their own. It only makes sense, you know, because mine is important and I am deserving while yours is a waste and you’re a lay-about. And that’s why I’m supporting my candidates because they will take yours away while maintaining mine. How do I know? Because they promised to cut the waste and we all know that yours is wasteful and mine isn’t.

And that, I dare say, is about the most ignorant rationale I’ve come across. But guess what? It works! How do you think Tea Party activists were elected in the mid-terms of 2010? Somehow, they continue to hold sway in spite of the fact that, if given the chance, they’d cut all programs for everyone regardless of need.

It’s no secret that the Republican Party has evolved into a group looking for a social agenda with which to stoke the visceral fires of its base. Gay marriage, abortion, birth control, and the like seek to obscure the fact that the party is really aligned more with corporate America than those it pretends to represent: the God-fearing, family loving Joe and Jane Citizen living somewhere in the heartland. Sadly, Joe and Jane have eaten up this rhetoric despite the fact that they fall farther and farther behind. This is called voting against your own best interests and the right has capitalized upon this phenomenon to a far greater degree than the left.

Assistance programs are designed for those that require a helping hand, but many take advantage of the program simply because they qualify. Regardless of political affiliation, this is just plain wrong and everyone pays in one way or another for such behavior. Granted, some assistance is all or nothing. Perhaps some recipients don’t need the full amount, but I don’t recall hearing of anyone paying excess funds forward to a charity or another individual in need. No, anything extra goes toward discretionary purchases.

And for anyone railing against federal assistance programs: the only program you are required to participate in is Social Security. Should you take one more dime from any government agency for any other reason whatsoever you need to shut your pie-hole. You might be a hypocrite, you might be ignorant, you might be both. But you sure as hell have no business in claiming to loath a system in which you participate. You may well continue to vote against your own best interests, but at least the thinking voters will not have to listen to your drivel.

And for those of you practicing what you preach: good for you. At least you show some conviction. Keep in mind, though, that one’s fortunes can turn in a moment. With that in mind, a word of caution that is older than the original Tea Party: be careful what you wish for.