I finished work at 5:04 PM, exhausted as usual and looking at another night of trying to get things done. It really is amazing how things seem to stack up, as if some mad scientist is simply stacking the odds higher and higher against me in the hopes of finding my breaking point. “Well Mr. Scientist, you shall not taste victory today!” is my standard retort to this daily examination, and all I can do is hope that, for at least one more day it remains true.
Since it was Thursday, I made my way over to the gym to try and restore some of the physical prowess that left me so long ago. Hard to believe that at one point I was almost 200 lbs. of vigorous human considering my current lank-a-licious state. As Jackie, the lady who cuts my hair, said the other day, “Frankie, you’re looking a little skinny. When are you gonna start pumping some iron again?” I’m trying Jackie, believe me I’m trying.
As I wound my way through Golden Valley passing other hard working people on their way home and gas stations looking to gouge them as deeply as possible, I listened to a story on MPR about an elderly woman and her trouble with heating. You see, natural gas prices are expected to rise right around 40% here in Minnesota, making it rather difficult for some people that don’t have much to get by. The story focused on the ways that she tried to stay warm during the winter including layers of blankets at night, sleeping with her dog for warmth, and visiting department stores for a bit of relief from the cold during the day when it gets dangerously cold.
The lady was a cripple, completely unable to work because of a back injury sustained in her previous occupation. Her monthly income between disability and social security was right around $800 while her monthly rent was a little over $500, leaving right around $300 to cover all her other expenses including food, transportation, utilities, and treats for the grand kids when they visit (what gramma doesn’t have treats for the little ones when they come over?).
At its core, the story was about how the federal government helps subsidize people’s heating costs to a certain extent, but not really enough to keep them afloat, something that will likely being exacerbated by increasing heating costs. In this case, this elderly woman, though she cuts every corner imaginable, even at the expense of her health (she has arthritis which causes her extreme pain when it is cold in the house), she can’t really afford to heat her house and is currently indebted to the government.
How can we as a country live with ourselves when things like this happen? How can we have any sense of civic pride when we leave our sick to die in the wake of disaster, our hungry to starve without a real effort at relief, and our elderly to freeze because they simply can’t afford to pay anymore? Is the most wealthy, proud, and powerful country in the world completely impotent to act benevolently towards its citizenry?
It filled me with such despair to hear that this was happening, such a bitter sense of hopelessness. I know, I know, there are undoubtedly people out there who could justify this by saying she deserved to be living in this state for one reason or another, and still others who will waste no time hurling their “love it or leave it” platitudes at me just as fast and furiously as they can. The bottom line is any country that thinks as highly of itself as America does has some pretty high standards to live up to, and this is a case where, I'm sorry, but we have failed utterly.
To be honest, listening to this story as it unfolded from my car door speakers and echoed through my conscience, it was the first time in my life that I was truly embarrassed of the United States. It embarrassed me that our country would allow any of its citizens to live like this, that it would allow a poor woman incapable of working to freeze.
We can do better than that.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
I totally agree.
I feel for ya man, I really do.
Still, its difficult for me to respond to this kind of post.
Helping old, arthitic, disabled ladies is definitely something that, in my opinion, citizens in this country should take responsibility for.
Unfortunately, identifying the problem is the easy part. But the U.S. government can't just throw a bunch of money at this problem.
Where do we start and where do we stop? Already there are thousands of people taking advantage of the little welfare they can get their hands on, cheating the system and screwing their fellow citizens who actually need it.
In addition to that, is it the governments responsibility to help EVERYONE in need? (How do you define needy for that matter?) If they did that, they would have to cut from other essential social/governmental programs. Like school programs, or agricultural subsidaries, or military. The list goes on.
Could you imagine the deficit we would have then? As a result, of course, you would have everyone complaining about fiscal responsibility and how the government is spending too much on old crippled people who would die anyway and not putting enough into social security programs for people who haven't grown old yet, or school programs for children who haven't lived their lives yet. The point is, there is no way that the goverment can help everyone in need, so who decides?
We live in a capitalist country. We have to live with fluxuations in the market and with that, its many consequences; albeit a depression, a surplus, or a gas hike.
Identifying the problem is easy. Effectively fixing the problem, now that is the challenge.
Alright boys, game on…
First, I realize that today we live in a paradigm of “Can’t Do” and that it is very difficult to overcome that basic mindset. We can’t take care of old ladies, we can’t provide healthcare, we can’t fund K-12 education the way it should be, we can’t support universities, we can’t build stadiums, we can’t properly maintain roads, we can’t help hurricane victims, we can’t recruit new military personnel, and we can’t stop the insurgency in Iraq. My question remains, why can’t the wealthiest, most powerful nation in the world do any of these things? Why is it that we can’t find the civic will to become the great society we could be instead of an eroding nation of pessimists and cynics? As I said, I understand that it is the mindset of the age, “can’t do that,” but it seems insulting to suggest that the United States is too weak to provide for its citizenry or that we simply lack the resources to care for those that cannot care for themselves.
Second, I realize it was inevitable that this become a political discussion, even though my original argument was not in regard to politics but morality. The questions you both seem to take out of this, and indeed what might be the key questions of the whole discussion, is what are government’s responsibilities in this situation and whose responsibility is it to care for those that cannot help themselves? I guess I feel that the original idea for society and government was to provide a way for human beings to look after each other, the proverbial two heads are better than one and we’re better off together than separate. You can argue that some of the burden of caring for the needy can be taken up by private organizations that are overcome with a desire to help, but it seems completely wrong to say “it is not the government's priority to take care of everyone.” That is the whole point of our government, to provide a structure that governs, polices, and cares for its citizens. I certainly don’t think we are a strictly military state (ie. Soviet era Russia) and don’t think it’s fair to shift the responsibility on to individual citizens (family members) who may or may not have the means to care for their relatives.
It is fair to argue that charities do a fair amount of work in this country and that every year generous citizens give to the organizations to help others. My argument as it pertains to these organizations is that it is not their responsibility to care for civilians in need, though it is great that they do so. It is the responsibility of the US government to care for its citizens that cannot provide for themselves, and I have a moral objection to our government’s denial of this obligation. Yes welfare is a problem, yes there are lazy people out there, yes there is waste and I know it drives you two crazy that somebody out there is getting something you think they don’t deserve, but exactly how big of a problem is it? I mean, the last estimate I saw was that the US military loses $5 billion (with a B) every year out of its budget; is it that big? Do welfare cheats cost the US government as much as welfare and Medicare for Wal-Mart employees that aren’t paid a living wage? It would be interesting to find out.
The bottom line in all of this is that as a society, we probably have about 10% of our population that is incapable of caring for themselves, a 10% that this woman is a part of. To deny our responsibility to care for this 10% is to deny a big reason the US government exists, to care for citizens in need, and something I find morally objectionable. What do you both think of the moral implications in this case?
Finally, I always find the comparisons people make between government and business, arguing that they should be more alike, to be completely laughable. First of all, there is a system of government that very closely mirrors the American business model known as “Feudalism.” In it, you have the king (CEO), lords (VPs and execs) who are richly benefited by the work of the serfs (workers), who in turn are supposed to be gracious and thankful for the opportunity to work for the king. In general, I think people have decided the Feudalism is not the most enjoyable government to live under, and I doubt the people of the United States would welcome it back with open arms. Granted, not ALL US companies function on this model, but a great many do, making it a reasonably accurate comparison. Second, there is the basic problem of goals when you compare business to government. The goal of government is to ultimately provide to people, while the goal of business is to take from people (thus the term net income). It is very hard to compare organizations that don’t even have the same purpose, mission, or goal and argue that one is functioning better than the other.
Sorry for the long response, just thought I’d add to the conversation. Good to see you both taking the time to read my gibberish and provide some responses that expand the discussion. Hope to see you both soon. :-)
Post a Comment