Remember Mr. Potter from It’s a Wonderful Life? I love that guy. In fact, I have a portrait of him hanging over the fireplace in my study. He uttered one of the great lines in cinematic history—one that will ring true throughout the ages. In scolding George Bailey for his propensity to dole out favors to undeserving bank customers, Mr. Potter said, “And what does that get us? A discontented, lazy rabble instead of a thrifty working class.” Bravo, Mr. Potter.
All last week the Washington blowhards told us that 42 million Americans were going to STARVE TO DEATH if they didn’t receive their SNAP benefits this past Saturday. Guess what? Nobody starved—and if the SNAP program is eliminated, no one is going to starve.
The reason 42 million people are on SNAP benefits is not because they are all starving; it is because these benefits are FREE with almost no strings attached. In most states, the application for SNAP benefits focuses solely on net income and expenses. In theory, a billionaire could receive SNAP. Moreover, if one were so inclined, why not just lie on the application? A 2016 Congressional Research Service report (and things have gotten much worse since) stated that only 0.13% of applicants were disqualified for lying. Recent reports suggest 54% of recipients are not U.S. citizens. Virtually no one goes to jail; at worst, they simply don’t get the benefits they weren’t entitled to in the first place. Create incentives for fraud and waste, and guess what you get?
Moreover, the people administering these programs—doling out money—LOVE giving it away. It’s not their money! It enhances their power and prestige, not to mention the adoration of certain constituencies.
For the AWFULs (Affluent White Female Liberals) who are now foaming at the mouth and yelling, “Smith is a HEARTLESS NAZI!” (while sipping their iced white-mocha llama-milk lattes before heading to their shamanic/Ayahuasca hot-yoga class), I say: Pipe down, Suzie! Having a “Love Is Love” sign in your front yard does not negate the cognitive deficiencies of a pea-sized brain.
Remember the Apostle Paul’s declaration in 1 Corinthians 13:13: “And now these three remain: faith, hope, and love. But the greatest of these is love.” Women get mushy over this passage at weddings, but the original word for “love” in the Septuagint is agape; in fact, the original King James Bible used “charity” instead of “love” to reflect this more accurate meaning.
Only people can administer agape love. Governments, by their nature, are soulless, and agape love requires a human connection. This is why charity works best when close to home. Enabling people to become fat and lazy grifters is not charity; indeed, it is the opposite of love. A good parent, no matter how wealthy, does not give a 13-year-old a credit card to do whatever the child wishes. Chores, hard work, and responsibility are an integral part of childhood development and a condition of receiving parental support. Every good parent knows such skills develop virtue, self-reliance, and self-worth. Enabling a child to become a spoiled, loudmouth, complaining Karen is a lifelong recipe for disaster.
“Charity” administered on a massive scale by extracting money from taxpayers through a faceless government benefit program ceases to be charity. It inevitably devolves into corruption—serving the interests of its promoters at the expense of the purported beneficiaries.
While some of our elites view the country from 30,000 feet on their way to Martha’s Vineyard, others of us are living on the ground, absorbing the empirical rather than the lib-oretical—a word made popular by the famous Greek rhetorician Isocrates, meaning “feelings over facts.” An overwhelming number of SNAP recipients could easily adjust their spending habits to pay for food. Others could work a few more hours a week. Both would help them far more than a handout—giving them skills, a work ethic, and lifting them into a higher economic stratum.
Adam Carolla, on his podcast last week, stated that the average weight of a female SNAP recipient is 211 lbs., compared to 146 lbs. for non-SNAP women. One doesn’t have to work for the federal Department of Fat Women on SNAP Benefits to know the likely truth of Carolla’s assertion. It’s right in front of our eyes every day.
Many recipients sell their benefits for cash. I know people who live in fancy luxury buildings with doormen on the Upper East Side on SNAP benefits. Cheating and fraud are rampant in massive government giveaway programs. The waste of money does not compare to the waste of human development and the damage done by government entitlement programs. A nurse friend tells me that the rudest, loudest, most entitled—and by far the most unhealthy—of her patients are SNAP recipients, who have been relegated to a permanent underclass of free stuff, with no appreciation for earning what they receive. As our Founders knew all too well, a republic cannot survive without a virtuous and self-reliant citizenry.
In my article last week, I wrote of John Taylor, an 18th- and early 19th-century Virginian, who railed against the “promoters of pernicious factions,” endowed by government preference, that practice “mendacious or ideological” schemes “under the title of patriots,” and are like “fanaticks under the title of saints, ready to perpetrate any crimes to gratify their interest or prejudice.” Say hello to the SNAP program and EBT cards. Nothing could be more fanatical than screeching, “PEOPLE WILL STARVE!” The real cruelty is not benefits being cut off; it is what the government has done to poor souls—suckered into dependency and used as pawns to serve the demagoguery of political elites.
Never rail against a policy without offering a solution! Yes, shut down SNAP. History has already informed us of a better way. Judeo-Christian values require adherents to put forth and demonstrate their agape love to feed and clothe the poor. Just ask the Jews, Catholics, Presbyterians, Anglicans, Baptists, Methodists, and many charitable-minded New Yorkers what they did for ragged factory workers and newly arrived immigrants before the age of explosive government largesse. No one starved; people were given succor, a sense of wider community, and an appreciation for being helped. Aid was often conditioned on good behavior and curtailing vice. Take a deep dive—it is astounding what these New Yorkers did and how well it worked. Agape love lifts the needy through human kindness and interpersonal relationships—sometimes “tough love”—instead of soulless distribution to an EBT card.
Government voraciously extracts money from paychecks and then says: “There’s no need for you to do the charitable things you used to do; we’ll take care of it from here!” It’s natural for an individual to abdicate what he felt was a moral obligation (feed the poor) after the government taxes him so it can “feed the poor.” But things worked much better the old way, plus less government “take” meant more capital in the private sector, which is always the best remedy for lifting up those on the lower rung of the ladder.
P.S. I made all that up about Isocrates coining the word “lib-oretical.” See how easy it is to commit fraud!
