You are here

Replacing Leviathan

Topic: 
Organizations: 
Places: 

http://blog.aarp.org/2014/07/08/tell-congress-protect-seniors-from-hunge...

This is the first in a 3-part series to outline the importance of programs funded by the OAA –such as Meals On Wheels –to the dignity of seniors across America. Please read, share and tell Congress to take action and not play political games with seniors’ health and well-being.

This FedGov law funds local Meals on Wheels programs. By the political structure I wish we lived under, it would have never been under Federal jurisdiction. But we can’t act on the world as we wish it was.

Having direct personal experience with my local MoW (Eastside Meals on Wheels), I’ve seen the program is useful and effective, with even some "public" purpose. Enabling people to stay in their homes has a cascade of benefits to neighborhoods and municipalities.

To just beat a drum about too much taxation and a massive Federal Government does not help a lick with the personal and local problems a Meals on Wheels program addresses. Simply cutting off the help on principle is not a great moral victory. And is a big loser in the rhetoric that actually wins votes.

So…what’s the practical pragmatic response? Do we look past principle for certain welfare or "charity" laws? Do we tough it out and tell people to find their own meals?

I say we have to rebuild our local and state charities, so that good programs no longer need FedGov funding. That takes personal direct action, to give and to volunteer. And for a while, we will be taxed to provide what we are also giving. But the people need help, and if we don’t like how it is being provided now, don’t we have an obligation to be part of the replacement system? Let’s re-create the morally superior safety net of private charity.

Comments

While there is relevance to distinguishing between what is possible and what is best. making that distinction does not alter the fact that what is possible is often at best net better than what is. 

I am sure MoW does good things. 

There are likely many government programs that are net positive even if most are not. 

That fact does not alter the fact that better - even if not politically possible alternatives exist or even that we might not be better off overall without them.

 

A common fallacy is seeing only what is and presuming the choices are between what is and nothing. 

Presuming that if government does nto do something it will not happen. 

 

As an example keeping seniors in their homes is often highly desireable - and MoW may facilitate that. 

 

Yet I can say from personal experience that the most potent force driving seniors out of their homes is GOVERNMENT. 

Presuming the choice was binary - which it is not. I would happily pitch MoW to eliminate all the other government forces driving seniors from their homes and families.