Read Online A More Perfect Union: What We the People Can Do to Reclaim Our Constitutional Liberties by Ben Carson MD, Candy Carson - Free Book Online Page B
Authors: Ben Carson MD, Candy Carson
Tags: nonfiction, Biography & Autobiography, Retail, Political Science, Politics, Civics & Citizenship, American Government, National, Constitutions
Ads: Link
self-improvement endeavors. It should not, however, meddle in the affairs of all the citizens or control every aspect of their lives, as is done in many communist and socialist countries.
There are those who think that the government should be responsible for the well-being and basic needs of all of its citizens. There is nothing in the Constitution that imposes such a responsibility on the federal government. In fact, this attitude is harmful. A culture of dependency can rapidly develop when people are provided with things rather than with opportunities. We all have acquaintances or relatives who continually want to borrow money from us, and if we allow it, the requests are never ending and the money is almost never repaid. After a while, most people stop making such loans, recognizing that they are enabling undesirable and self-destructive behavior. In my opinion, promotion of the general welfare includes creating an environment conducive to the expansion of the number of good jobs. It means creating opportunities for advancement and enhancing the ability of citizens to care for their families. It does not mean doing things that promote dependency.
I know something of government dependency. I grew up in a single-parent home with a mother who had been able to attain only a third-grade education and who was functionally illiterate. She worked multiple jobs in order to maintain her self-sufficiency, although she occasionally did accept some public aid. She did not think that receiving public assistance was a good thing, and she constantly drilled into both my brother and me the need to work hard and to become self-sufficient citizens. Fortunately, we were able to achieve that goal and to provide a comfortable life for her in her old age. I believe she understood, even with her limited education, that if her children achieved great success, not only would they be happier but she too would end up in a much better place. By the same token, when our government concentrates on providing opportunities for self-support rather than handouts, in the long run it will have many more productive citizens. These citizens will strengthen the fabric of the country and provide an economic base that is much more capable of promoting the general welfare than handouts are.
In the late 1960s the idea of creating general welfare programs for the people became popular. Since that time, we as a nation have spent several trillion dollars on general welfare programs. One would think that such a high level of expenditure would ensure success. It would not be unreasonable to believe that today there would be fewer people on food stamps, fewer single-parent homes, fewer people involved in the penal system, and less poverty in general. None of these problems have decreased, though. There is no need to demonize those who have been responsible for this tremendous waste of resources, but we can hope that they too have theability to objectively analyze the results of such spending and join in the effort to truly improve the lives of all Americans.
PROMOTING PRIVATE CHARITY
We can endlessly analyze and dissect the reasons for increasing poverty in the United States, but the pertinent question is “What can we do about it?” Is dealing with poverty the responsibility of the federal government? No, it is not. However, the government does have a responsibility to promote the general welfare, so the question becomes “What does that mean?”
I believe the best way for the government to improve the lives of its citizens is to encourage the establishment of compassionate programs by business, industry, Wall Street, churches, and community groups. Not only is there tremendous wealth associated with all of the aforementioned groups but, more important, they have members in virtually every city and town in America, which means they can develop personal relationships with those in need.
Governmental programs are often faceless and unsustainable. Handouts create
There are those who think that the government should be responsible for the well-being and basic needs of all of its citizens. There is nothing in the Constitution that imposes such a responsibility on the federal government. In fact, this attitude is harmful. A culture of dependency can rapidly develop when people are provided with things rather than with opportunities. We all have acquaintances or relatives who continually want to borrow money from us, and if we allow it, the requests are never ending and the money is almost never repaid. After a while, most people stop making such loans, recognizing that they are enabling undesirable and self-destructive behavior. In my opinion, promotion of the general welfare includes creating an environment conducive to the expansion of the number of good jobs. It means creating opportunities for advancement and enhancing the ability of citizens to care for their families. It does not mean doing things that promote dependency.
I know something of government dependency. I grew up in a single-parent home with a mother who had been able to attain only a third-grade education and who was functionally illiterate. She worked multiple jobs in order to maintain her self-sufficiency, although she occasionally did accept some public aid. She did not think that receiving public assistance was a good thing, and she constantly drilled into both my brother and me the need to work hard and to become self-sufficient citizens. Fortunately, we were able to achieve that goal and to provide a comfortable life for her in her old age. I believe she understood, even with her limited education, that if her children achieved great success, not only would they be happier but she too would end up in a much better place. By the same token, when our government concentrates on providing opportunities for self-support rather than handouts, in the long run it will have many more productive citizens. These citizens will strengthen the fabric of the country and provide an economic base that is much more capable of promoting the general welfare than handouts are.
In the late 1960s the idea of creating general welfare programs for the people became popular. Since that time, we as a nation have spent several trillion dollars on general welfare programs. One would think that such a high level of expenditure would ensure success. It would not be unreasonable to believe that today there would be fewer people on food stamps, fewer single-parent homes, fewer people involved in the penal system, and less poverty in general. None of these problems have decreased, though. There is no need to demonize those who have been responsible for this tremendous waste of resources, but we can hope that they too have theability to objectively analyze the results of such spending and join in the effort to truly improve the lives of all Americans.
PROMOTING PRIVATE CHARITY
We can endlessly analyze and dissect the reasons for increasing poverty in the United States, but the pertinent question is “What can we do about it?” Is dealing with poverty the responsibility of the federal government? No, it is not. However, the government does have a responsibility to promote the general welfare, so the question becomes “What does that mean?”
I believe the best way for the government to improve the lives of its citizens is to encourage the establishment of compassionate programs by business, industry, Wall Street, churches, and community groups. Not only is there tremendous wealth associated with all of the aforementioned groups but, more important, they have members in virtually every city and town in America, which means they can develop personal relationships with those in need.
Governmental programs are often faceless and unsustainable. Handouts create
Similar Books
