When it comes to essentials, government is worthless
I always laugh (OK, cry) every time the government is forced to lay off or cut “nonessential” personnel or programs.
I guess being a business owner has taught me that paying for something “nonessential” is just plain dumb. Or in another word: worthless. To a business, wasting hard-earned money on something “nonessential” is the very definition of worthless.
But when you’re the government, spending money that’s not yours on people and programs that are “nonessential” is the very definition of essential. To comprehend this in the real world, one must understand how and why a government bureaucracy exists.
Simply put, that is to perpetuate itself. Government is like the Borg in “Star Trek,” a giant mass taking over and absorbing everything in its path. As Jean-Luc Picard found out, it does this bit by bit, so the victim eventually must give in and become part of the behemoth. Resistance is futile.
So when I look at what’s going on with our government between Obamacare, the “shutdown” that really isn’t and the nanny state essentials the know-it-alls in D.C. have forced upon us over the centuries, I come to one conclusion: The government is the ultimate analogy in understanding exactly what the words worthless and essential mean. But one must look deep to have the correct understanding of each term. The government is indeed essential in protecting the citizenry and individual rights. But when it comes to the myriad programs the government foists upon all of us, when coupled with its inability to do what the private sector should be doing in the marketplace, it’s worthless.
Just look at who’s most affected by this so-called “shutdown” of our federal government. We hear story after story about those least able to provide for themselves as the ones being hurt the most. It is true? I have no doubt. But ask yourself this. If the government created these programs out of the concern that it, and only it, is the entity that can properly and fiscally take care of these at-risk individuals and families, why isn’t it funding what should indeed be an “essential” program?
The answer is more simple than you think. And more sinister. I propose that these individuals are targeted for suffering on purpose. And that this targeting is essential to the government’s survival. Look at it this way. The government has all but outlawed private charity while making itself the be-all, end-all in helping people. In other words, where else are these folks going to go for help? So the federal government begins with WIC, Head Start and SCHIP programs, to food stamps, Medicaid and insurance subsidies, to finally Medicare and Social Security, leaving the people most in need with no choice but to be taken over by the flying cube known as the Borg. And once you are fully integrated, there’s no chance of survival outside the walls of where you’ve been imprisoned. Therefore, the government has a way of making itself indeed essential to these people by destroying their self-worth. So the only logical result is the government threatening the subsidies to these same folks when things get tough. And that’s because the government runs these entitlement programs for two reasons: power and money. Obamacare is just the latest example. The only time government thinks about these people again is when its very existence is threatened.
Does this mean we shouldn’t help those in need? Of course not. I would find it difficult if not impossible to find anyone I know who isn’t in favor of spreading out charitable safety nets for those in need.
I just know the government is worthless and should be virtually “nonessential” in carrying out these missions. But over time, like the Borg, the government has taken control in this area of life because its handouts come with no strings attached. All one has to do is sign up and — voila! — here’s your check. The same doesn’t occur with churches or local charities. With them comes an expectation we’re here to help you get back on your feet and you have responsibility for yourself and your family. Care to guess which end of the charity game has a better success rate of giving people self worth versus the one causing generational poverty?
If you need more proof of which end of the spectrum is best at doing all of the things the government is trying, try this on for size. Charities basically run the same way they have, with the same missions, throughout history. Do you think Mother Teresa, the Salvation Army or March of Dimes ever had to comprehensively rewrite their mission statements? I doubt it. Government, on the other hand, passes law after law on top of mandate after mandate it continually deems worthless, because it now has a better way that must be piled on for the good of the people. And it’s worthless for one reason. History has proven government will achieve the opposite result of the program’s intentions, excepting for transferring money and power to the Borg.
My conclusion: Government is, proven by history and performance, essentially worthless.