Right or Wrong? The Welfare State in America What are welfare/transfer payments? It means many different things to many different people. A helping hand, robbery, support, way of life, wrong, right, and more. To me, welfare/transfer payments are charity that the government mandates upon people. While that may seem harsh to some, lets look at the facts and breakdown my definition. Charity is defined as: “generous actions or donations to aid the poor, ill, or helpless”, (Simpson 488) and mandatory is defined as: “authoritatively ordered; obligatory; compulsory”. (Simpson 1207)Those who are eligible to pay taxes must do so, and then the government uses some of that money to give to the “needy” at their discretion. We have to pay it, and it goes to the “needy” I think mandatory charity fits that description adequately. I view this as fundamentally wrong. I believe it is not the role of the government to decide how much money I should donate to others, if any at all; that is a personal choice. Imagine if the government began collecting taxes en-masse and donating them to help stop animal cruelty. There would be enormous uproar and people would cry that the government is wasting their money on a silly cause. Personally, I would not view this as silly, and think it would be an admirable endeavor, but many would not, which is my point. Each person who gives money to a charity does so because of his or her personal feelings. Why is it mandatory that I give to the government’s charity or give at all? I should be able to choose whether or not I donate to welfare just as I have a choice whether or not to donate to PETA or a similar organization. There is no difference in my eyes. People can make the argument that welfare/transfer payments keeps people off the street, that even if you don’t believe in it, it helps you by creating a better society. Once again, I disagree. I believe that the human species is not much different than any other species, and in order to improve as a society we must let the forces of evolution act upon us. As much as we like to romanticize the image of welfare programs helping lift the talent laden person out of poverty to realize their great potential, the reality is that for the most part, the socioeconomic level you reside in has a lot to do with your ability/intelligence. Births, poverty, Incarceration, chronic welfare recipients, and high school dropout all appear less and less the higher up the IQ scale you go. (Herrnstein 312) The fact of the matter is, that for the most part, we are pouring money into the group with the lowest intelligence, highest crime rate, and highest birth rate. I feel that the environment should test your “fitness” for survival, and that we should not be forced to interfere with basic Darwinian survival via transfer payments. Richard Herrnstein, author of “The Bell Curve” writes: “The United States already has policies that inadvertently social-engineer who has babies, and it is encouraging the wrong women. If the United States did as much to encourage high-IQ women to have babies as it now does to encourage low-IQ women, it would rightly be described as engaging in aggressive manipulation of fertility. The technically precise description of America's fertility policy is that it subsidizes births among poor women, who are also disproportionately at the low end of the intelligence distribution” (The Bell Curve 325). There is a reason some go off to rule countries and some cannot even find a way to buy food, the environment chooses them. Long-term reliance on welfare is analogous to feeding wild animals on a daily basis. In the animal world, population levels are held in check by environmental factors such as food in an area. The most “fit” animals survive and the weaker ones are chosen for extinction (this is why there aren’t ten times the amount of deer in America as there are humans.) When you feed the animals, some survive and are able to reproduce that should have been chosen for extinction. They go on to breed and now there are even more hungry animals running around. (Wildlife Care of Ventura County 2) Experts say it is better to “let nature take its course” I believe nature should take its course on humans as well. This is not simply an ideological issue either; it also is an economic one. Two of the largest of the transfer payments are Medicare and Medicaid, consuming over 21% of our national budget. (Medicare and Medicaid: What's the Difference? 1). Medicare is health insurance for people 65 years or older, under age 65 with certain disabilities, and any age with end-stage renal disease or Lou Gehrig's disease. Medicare has four parts Part A, which is hospital insurance, Part B, which is medical insurance, Part C, which is Medicare Advantage Plans, and Part D, which is Prescription Drug Coverage. Medicaid is the United States health program for certain people and families with low incomes and resources. It is a means-tested program that is jointly funded by the state and federal governments, and is managed by the states. People served by Medicaid are U.S. citizens or legal permanent residents, including low-income adults, their children, and people with certain disabilities. Poverty alone does not necessarily qualify someone for Medicaid. Medicaid is the largest source of funding for medical and health-related services for people with limited income in the United States. (Medicare and Medicaid: What's the Difference? 3). The main problem with these programs is that the majority of their funding comes from people who will never receive any benefit from it whatsoever. The top 10% in this country who pay for 70% of national expenditures are almost certainly never going to collect from either of these, so why should they be forced to pay for them? (Herrnstein 134) Once again, it is not the responsibility of the rich to be forced into buying things for those who cannot afford them. Charity can be a wonderful thing; forced charity on the other hand is not. People should have the choice to do what they wish with their money, whether it means hoarding it or giving it all away. Another problem with these programs is that their expenses will skyrocket over the next 50 years, becoming a huge burden on the contributing taxpayers. All one needs to do is look at Greece as an economic model to see why placing huge transfer payment burdens can lead to disaster. They are on the brink of Economic Armageddon due to their rampant spending. Spending that almost single handedly pays for transfer programs. Eventually the leech runs out of blood. People will often bring up the proverbial “Are you just going to let Grammy and Grandpa starve?” question .This is in reference to seniors losing their free care, and thus being left with nothing. My response would be, Grammy and Grandpa should have been more fiscally responsible, and are not my burden. Almost anyone can support themselves on almost any income with they are fiscally responsible enough. I as a student provide housing, food, and health care on almost no income whatsoever, I do this by being careful with my money and deciphering between what I need and what I want. Saying no to “Grammy and Grandpa” is not as cruel as it appears on the surface. Social Security is a mandatory redistribution of wealth from workers to the retired elderly. A quick glace at “SOCIAL SECURITY EXPLAINED by Robin Michel will yield the following numbers. Currently, Social Security imposes a regressive tax of 12.4% on all income up to $87,900. The program redistributes nearly half a trillion dollars every year. It is the federal government's largest spending program, accounting for nearly 22 percent of all federal spending. Currently, the 12.4% tax raises more funds than are paid out in benefits. That's expected to change in 2018, when benefits will exceed tax revenues. The so-called "trust fund" is basically a Ponzi scheme. (Micheli 2). The money is not actually invested in any real economic sense, but instead it is spent indirectly on other government programs. As Michael Tanner, an expert on social security in the United States notes "That surplus is used to purchase government bonds ,the only purpose to which it can be put. The purchase of those bonds generates general revenue for the federal government and that money is spent on the operations of the federal government." Once the deficits begin, the "fund" can only be repaid by cutting other government program or raising general taxes. The other issue raised by social security is that if it was kept in the hands of those paying it, it could be invested or used to make more money at the payer’s discretion. Whether I get everything I payed into social security back or not is irrelevant, it is my money and I should be able to invest or throw it away at my discretion. I don’t need the government to keep it in their piggy bank for me. It is important to note that, if I were old and poor because I wasted my money, I would not expect anyone to come to my rescue. I chose this course of action and will live with the consequences. When people collect Social Security benefits, they are not getting "their" money back. Their money has already been transferred to and spent by previous retirees. Instead, recipients are taking money directly out of the pockets of other American citizens. While Social Security is often compared to an "insurance" program, it is not one in its primary function. In an insurance program, willing participants pay money to offset the risk of some future damage or disability. An insurance company has to maintain sufficient assets to pay those who need to collect. Social Security, on the other hand, pays benefits by forcibly taking money from unwilling participants. The core principle of insurance is that a number of people pay into a common pool sufficient funds to pay the few who fall into trouble. Social Security, on the other hand, takes money from all workers and pays it to all retirees. There is an element of the Social Security system that covers disability, and that's analogous to an insurance program. But that could and should be treated as a separate issue. (Micheli 1). If Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid were to be removed, over 40% of the United States spending would be wiped off the books. (Micheli 3). It would free up capital that could be spent expanding industry, creating jobs, and strengthening the economy. People often scoff at the removal of these programs, saying how cruel and outrageous there termination would be. I scoff at the lack of autonomy and decision-making stolen from this country by the “nanny state”. This idea that the government needs to take care of everybody and ensure everyone’s safety is ridiculous. These programs do help people, and they are in place to do well. That does not change the fact that people are forced into their participation. Clearly, I am against mandatory transfer payments in almost every aspect. With that being said, if the government is going to force us to pay into this charity, at least we get to have some say in how it is setup. We choose whom our state legislators are, who are in turn supposed to run our state how its inhabitants see fit. With the states in charge of welfare, it gives each person a little more control over how their tax dollars are being used. An example of this is in South Carolina, where receiving transfer payments is much more difficult than in say, California. This allows us more autonomy than if the national government set standards for all fifty states. (Rector 1). The question of whether this creates inequality is really not applicable in my eyes. Transfer payments are a gift, not a right. Receiving a donation of any kind should be appreciated; the fact that it’s mandatory is irrelevant. I also believe that welfare discourages people from working and finding jobs. Where is the motivation and drive if you know you can do nothing and still receive payments? If the only thing keeping people from starving was finding a job and working hard, I’m sure a lot more people would be employed. This was proven true with the passing of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act. A large portion of people no longer where eligible for welfare, and the poverty level decreased. This proves that jobs were available; they just didn’t see the need to get one. (Rector 2). I am against all types of transfer payments: Social security, Medicare, Medicaid, Welfare, National Healthcare, etc in almost all cases. It is the job of the individual to be responsible with their actions. If this means not being able to have kids, not having a huge TV, no trips to Cancun, no fancy car, than so be it. These are all privileges and not rights. The way the government is set up today, people can be financially irresponsible and there are no consequences. There are to many safety nets keeping people from the streets. When someone wastes their money, the government simply takes other responsible citizens money and gives it to them. If there were no safety nets, I’m sure people would be much more careful and live within their means. This is not to say that all people who are in need got there by being irresponsible, but those who have reached a point of instability at their own fault would be much lower without safety nets. Business fail all the time due to poor management, and not being run correctly. I think people should be allowed to “fail” as well. Micheal Herrnstein also shares this view; he writes in his book “The Bell Curve” “Moreover, I fear that increasing welfare will create a "custodial state" in "a high- tech and more lavish version of the Indian reservation for some substantial minority of the nation's population." I also predict increasing totalitarianism: It is difficult to imagine the United States preserving its heritage of individualism, equal rights before the law, free people running their own lives, once it is accepted that a significant part of the population must be made permanent wards of the states" (The Bell Curve 449) If you want to discuss inequality, I believe that it lies at the top of the socioeconomic ladder. Data from the Nation Taxpayers Union states that the top 1% of this countries earner pay over 40% of the income tax, and the top 5% pay almost 70%, almost half the country pays no income tax what so ever. (National Taxpayers Union 1) Why should (for the most part) the most successful, driven, intelligent, and responsible people have to forced to bear the brunt of the “failed”? I believe the role of Government is to provide a solid infrastructure: roads, police, firemen, schools, etc and allow the rest to play itself out.

Works Cited
National Taxpayers Union - Who Pays Income Taxes?. (n.d.). National Taxpayers Union. 1996 Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act - SourceWatch. (n.d.). SourceWatch. Retrieved May 5, 2011, from http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=1996_Personal_Responsibility_and_Work_ Opportunity_Reconciliation_Act WCVC - Eight Reasons Why You Shouldn't Feed Wildlife. (n.d.). Wildlife Care of Ventura County. Retrieved May 6, 2011, from http://www.wildlifecareofventura.org/Animal%20Help%20Information%20Pages/Feedin g%20Wildlife%20-%20Why
Herrnstein, Richard J., and Charles A. Murray. The Bell Curve: Intelligence and Class Structure in American Life. New York: Free, 1994. Print.
"Medicare and Medicaid: What's the Difference? | Nolo.com." Lawyers, Legal Forms, Law Books & Software, Free Information - Nolo. Web. 10 Nov. 2011. <http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/medicare-medicaid-whats-difference- 29615.html>.
Micheli, Robin. "SOCIAL SECURITY EXPLAINED Suffering from Social Insecurity? Here Are the Basics about the System That Touches Every American Family. - September 1, 1988." CNNMoney - Business, Financial and Personal Finance News. Web. 10 Nov. 2011.<http://money.cnn.com/magazines/moneymag/moneymag_archive/1988/09/01/846 60/ind ex.htm>.
Rector, Robert. "The Effects of Welfare Reform." Conservative Policy Research and Analysis. Web. 10 Nov. 2011. <http://www.heritage.org/research/testimony/the-effects-of-welfare- reform>.
Simpson, J. A., and E. S. C. Weiner. The Oxford English Dictionary. Oxford: Clarendon, 1989. Print.
Tanner, Micheal D. "The 6.2 Percent Solution: A Plan for Reforming Social Security." 32 (2004). Print.