Another ridiculous story showing how big government ruins everything, and why I am a conservative. by R.J. Moeller
(conservative)
Saturday, October 13, 2007
My dad's favorite movie is What About Bob? In it, a neurotic man with a strong need for family connections hounds his doctor and his family while they're on vacation. The most famous scene from the film is when the main character, Bob Wiley, played by Bill Murray, is enjoying a delicious homemade meal of fried chicken, corn on the cob, mashed potatoes, and salad. Bob, who would usually be eating dinner out of a box by himself in his lonely apartment, asks if the corn he is partaking in happens to be hand-shucked or not?
The reason this is funny, in case you are German, is because Bob's so lucky that the Marvin family is even having him for dinner, but he cannot help himself and asks a very inconsequential question that borders on discourteous. Of course in the movie the good doctor's brood loves everything Bob does and says and sees no harm in any of his bizarre antics. They are more interested in helping Bob and can tell he is harmless.
While this film is just that, a film, it rang true to a different tune recently when I heard about a newly passed statute in the state of Virginia (which happens to be where the film itself was actually filmed). Turns out the government felt it necessary to pass legislation to further hinder private charities and faith-based organizations from serving the needs of the homeless community.
A lawsuit brought by a man without a home who had eaten food at a homeless shelter, and gotten food poison, raised enough eyebrows to enact a law that restricts who exactly can give free meals to the homeless. As if this was some sort of rampant problem.
Next week I think my state should pass a law that will stop those pesky volunteer tutors who help newly immigrated students because I heard one little girl got a bad grade on her math test the other day.
The new restrictions make it mandatory for a governmental approval and inspection before any food is served to the homeless; anywhere at anytime. That part of the law makes some sense, but is still over-reaching. The real kicker in this is that churches and shelters are required to have industrial quality refrigerators, sinks, and dish-washing equipment. I don't know if you've seen the price tag for any of those items lately, but it will not be cheap. One thing every church and charity on the planet constantly struggles to have is money.
My father is a pastor and he has spent 15 of his 30 years in the ministry in the inner city. One church that he served in the 90's is on the North side of Chicago. The church ran a homeless men's shelter out of its basement and housed three to four dozen men almost every night of the year. My brothers, sisters and I helped numerous times in the kitchen preparing food for meals and cleaning dishes afterwards.
I can also tell you that the program that fed the men barely scraped by on a daily basis. Money was always the issue. While those running the church and shelter believed God would provide, they knew how important making their dollar stretch really was.
President Bush, in his first term, enacted laws that gave tax breaks to faith-based organizations and charities. Not just religious ones, but secular as well. He was roundly criticized for pandering to his "base". I guess if his base consists of the men, women, and children who benefit from free meals and clothing and warm places to sleep then he was preaching to the choir.
Conservatives like myself believe firmly in helping their fellow man. The government will, and must, exact some measure of control over such organizations for obvious reasons. However, if the real intent of charity work is to promote the general welfare of those less fortunate then what sense is it to force already struggling churches and shelters to dig deeper into empty pockets? This is counter-productive and foolish.
I understand that homeless people are hurting for basic needs. That is given. But, I have also seen firsthand that almost every single one of them is grateful for any help they can get. It is a sad and lonely life they lead. The kindness their fellow man is willing to show does not go unnoticed. They don't care what kind of sink the vegetables are washed off in. They are just glad the vegetables did not come from a dumpster. Imagine what kind of life that would be. Now imagine you are turned away from a shelter you frequent because they couldn't afford the right size of fridge.
Maybe we should stop allowing people to put money in the cups of begging homeless downtown Chicago to prevent one of them from receiving counterfeit money, or worse yet, Canadian cash?
Conservatives (and Libertarians) want small government and tax breaks for those who help the helpless. Democrats want your tax money, and then they will cut off who can help who so everyone is forced to come groveling back to the government. The Democrats want the government to grow. They believe that Big Brother should foot the bill for the "little guy". They just don't tell the little guy that it is his own money they'll be borrowing to pick up the tab.
People helping people is what we need. Not overfed bureaucracies. Let's give the people on the front lines of helping the neediest people in our country, a break. I doubt the homeless care whether or not the corn is hand-shucked.
Did you like this article? If you did, Thumb It! 12
thumbs so far
The views expressed
in this article are those of R.J. Moeller only and
do not represent the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates.
R.J. Moeller is solely responsible for the contents
of this article and is not an employee or otherwise affiliated
with Nolan Chart, LLC in his/her role as a columnist.
Posted By: Walt Thiessen
Date: 2007-10-15 05:21:48
I applaud the efforts of people like you and your father who have helped the poor.
However, I can't agree with your assertion that conservatives want smaller government, because their actions prove otherwise. The Bush administration and the Republican Party have grown the government (and the resulting national debt) more than any previous administration in American history, Democratic or Republican. In fact, the national debt has DOUBLED within Bush's term in office from $6 trillion to $12 trillion! Nor can the Republicans blame this on a Democratic Congress, since Republicans controlled both Congress and the President up until the mid-term elections of 2006. That's six years of Republican big government spending. Conservatives talk the talk, but they don't walk the walk.
I know all the stats as well, and notice I never said anything about Republicans, only Conservatives. True conservatives want to effectively curb the expansion of government (unless it's in a time of war), and Bush has steadily shown himself to be moderate (to say the least) in this area (and others). Conservatives happen to find themselves in the Republican camp currently, but that may change. I guess what I am trying to say is that the GOP is abandoning its principles for political expediency...and it's going to come back to bite them if and when we (the true Conservatives) abandon them. My answer: less power for the Federal government. Less power centralized in one place will lead to less corruption and less power for Congress to spend like the inebriated sailors they've been impersonating. Shame on Republicans, but my brand of Conservatism is closer to your views in this matter I would wager. Thanks for your thoughts though, and great use of stats. I completely agree with them and your assertions...to a point.
Posted By: Walt Thiessen
Date: 2007-10-16 05:31:49
You say that "true Conservatives" as opposed to Republicans favor less power and size for the Federal government, a claim I've heard over and over throughout my lifetime. An interesting claim, RJ, but is it really true? I think it's not because actions speak louder than words.
You have already indicated that you could vote for Rudy Giuliani, although you wouldn't necessarily be happy about it because of his views on gun control and abortion. But Giuliani was no small government mayor. By the time he left office, he had increased deficit spending in NYC by 23%! He also claimed to have enacted 23 tax cuts, but in fact he opposed many of them including the very largest, a 12.5% income tax surcharge, but in reality he had opposed the cut. Another cut was actually proposed and backed by the Governor, but Rudy takes credit for it. And he took one of the tax cuts that came along during his term and promptly bid the money saved on a new sports stadium for the New York Yankees rather than returning that money to the taxpayers. I think that's abominable, and I say that as a lifelong Yankee fan.
I'm guessing that you consider yourself to be a "Reagan" Conservative. Yet, both Reagan and Giuliani in public office spent on a regular basis more than their respective governments collected in taxes. Reagan, who got himself elected primarily by deriding Jimmy Carter for deficit spending and growing the national debt, ultimately made Carter look "conservative" by comparison. Carter's administration increased our national debt by about $275 Billion, but Reagan single-handedly drove deficit spending through the roof and increased it by about $1.5 Trillion!
There's a really great graph at http://www.lafn.org/politics/gvdc/Natl_Debt_Chart.html that shows how it's usually Republicans and not Democrats who engage in the most government growth and spending increases, yet you say that "True Conservatives" have usually backed Republicans. How do you square all this with your claim that conservatives favor "small government" views?
"Conservatives (and Libertarians) want small government and tax breaks for those who help the helpless. Democrats want your tax money, and then they will cut off who can help who so everyone is forced to come groveling back to the government. The Democrats want the government to grow. They believe that Big Brother should foot the bill for the "little guy". They just don't tell the little guy that it is his own money they'll be borrowing to pick up the tab. "
Conservatives want the tax breaks. Libertairans want the small government. Your compound subject and compound predicate leave an impression of congruence where none exists.
Walt-
Great points as always, but it feels like we're having a fun game of semantics. I will vote for whoever is opposed to Hillary in the general election in 2008, as I would any Democrat in any primary for any position. You and I it seems are on the relatively same "side" in our opinion of small government, curtailed spending, and a strong, free market economy. I say that true conservatives believe in those things, you say we don't based on recent trends. I guess my question is: who is out there that satisfies your idea of a good choice for public office? I would like to know so I can look into them my self. Everyone knows Ron Paul is not a legitimate candidate, so if that is all Libertarians have got...I'll take my chances with Mitt Romney.
Also, a vote for Giuliani would be a vote of desparation to not have a Socialist for President. Being pragmatic and being naive are not the same.
Want to comment on
this article? Leave your comment
here. Your email address is required to track your
comment. However, we will neither publish your email
address nor distribute it to other organizations or
persons. The only reason we might use it would be if
we needed to contact you regarding your comment. All
comments are subject to our
terms of use policy.
