Free Cars for the Poor?

If you're going to be on welfare, might as well do it in Massachusetts.

Free cars for poor fuel road rage

Gov. Deval Patrick's free wheels for welfare recipients program is revving up despite the stalled economy, as the keys to donated cars loaded with state-funded insurance, repairs and even AAA membership are handed out to get them to work.

But the program - fueled by a funding boost despite the state’s fiscal crash - allows those who end up back on welfare to keep the cars anyway.

“It’s mind-boggling. You’ve got people out there saying, ‘I just lost my job. Hey, can I get a free car, too?’ ” said House Minority Leader Brad Jones (R-North Reading).

It costs the State of Massachusetts about $6,000 per recipient for the first year of the program. Gov. Patrick is one of President Obama's best buddies, even to the point of "lending" him speech talking points in recent years. There's also talk that Patrick, who is losing popularity rapidly with even the liberal leaning electorate of that state, might be receptive to a federal position.

The free car program has been a trial program -- only about 65 cars a year to welfare recipients who prove, at least briefly, that they have a job and children. But apparently many people are losing patience with this approach.

I think this is a good time to discuss principles. How much assistance should government give to people before it becomes self-defeating?

Our Founding Fathers had a fairly coherent set of rules. First and foremost, there should be a hierarchy of fixed responsibility to those who are in dire financial straits. Quoting from "The 5,000 Year Leap," by W. Cleon Skousen (1981, 2006, National Center for Constitutional Studies):

"The first and foremost level of responsibility is with the individual himself; the second level is the family; then the church; next the community; finally the county, and, in a disaster or emergency, the state. Under no circumstances is the federal government to become involved in public welfare. The Founders felt it would corrupt the government and also the poor. No Constitutional authority exists for the federal government to participate in charity or welfare." [Emphasis DTO]

Has Massachusetts (and other states, including Oklahoma) jumped the gun by circumventing the responsibility of extended family, churches, communities and counties? I'll bet the answer is yes.

Do you suppose the federal government is working behind the scenes to funnel money to the state of Massachusetts for various and sundry benefits? You can bet your ass.

Is this corrupting government and lending the situation to hard feelings? How could it not be?

There is a place for public compassion but we've gone so far in that direction that we've choked out private, personal compassion, almost to the point where most people don't feel very compassionate. That's not good.

It's going to get worse if the president has his way on eliminating charitable deductions in our tax code. (By the way, you will be told that this is only for the "rich" people making more than $250,000. This is more mendacity. It is difficult for most working people to give enough to ever take full credit on their taxes for their charity, but I digress.) If charitable giving loses its favored status, it will hurt charities and churches, those institutions that are supposed to be higher up the responsibility level for assisting the poor. Thus it will empower Uncle Sugar to take a greater role.

The Founders would not have allowed this.

Neither should you.