47%

I recently overheard a couple of 20-somethings on the patio at an open-air mall talk about how they will vote in the upcoming election.  The insipid arguments they made to justify their choice made me cringe.  They talked about universal health care as a “good idea” and how “tax cuts for the rich” would widen the gap between the “haves” and the “have-nots.”  They also talked about the Republican plan to “wipe out Medicare and Social Security “and how electing Romney would be “bad for the economy.”

As I listened to their conversation, the main theme was they want the government to do even more for people. The more I thought about what I heard, the more I thought about Romney’s recent “47%” commentary.

During a private fundraiser held in May, Romney said “There are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the president no matter what. All right, there are 47 percent who are with him, who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe the government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you-name-it. That that's an entitlement. And the government should give it to them. And they will vote for this president no matter what.”

After the videotape became public, Romney stood by his comments while admitting that his thoughts were “not elegantly” stated.  I agree it may be inelegant, but I think his point is fair.

An April 2012 poll conducted by the Pew Research Center (http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2012/09/20/where-the-public-stands-on-government-assistance-taxes-and-the-presidential-candidates/) indicates that while most Americans (71%) believe that poor people have become too dependent on government programs, a majority (59%) believe  it is the responsibility of the government to take care of people who can’t take care of themselves. Fifty nine percent of Americans also believe the government should guarantee every citizen enough to eat and a place to sleep.

Frankly, that disturbs me.  The Preamble outlines the purpose of the U. S. Constitution. It says “promote the general welfare,” but nothing about providing food and shelter.  As a matter of fact, nowhere in the U. S. Constitution does it say that the federal government will provide food, shelter, or any of the other basic necessities to the American public.  And it says that for a good reason; it is not the responsibility of the U. S. government to provide food, clothing, or shelter to the American citizens.  It is the responsibility of the American citizens to secure such things for themselves and their families.

I want everyone to have enough food and proper shelter.  I sure don’t want people to starve or live on the streets.  But with a national debt exceeding $16,000,000,000,000 and likely to go higher, the government cannot afford to assume responsibility for the personal welfare of each and every citizen.  The risk of an economic meltdown, such as the recent European debt crisis, grows as the debt grows.  So, whose responsibility is it to feed and shelter U.S. citizens?  I work so I can provide for my family.  Isn't that a reasonable expectation?  The U.S. Constitution grants us certain rights and protections, but it doesn't promise food and shelter.    

What happened to the American spirit that drives us to pick ourselves up by our own bootstraps and make a life for ourselves and our families?  The government should not assume responsibility, especially for those who choose not take responsibility for their own welfare.  The government should eliminate barriers to fulfilling the American dream, yet even those are not guaranteed.  In the same speech, Romney said, “My job is not to worry about those people.  I'll never convince them that they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives."  He’s absolutely right.  He won’t convince them.  This November, we have a choice between an incumbent with a track record of federal government expansion and entitlements that are likely to drive us over the fiscal cliff or a candidate that has plans for reducing the size of and dependence on the federal government.  If we don’t make a change, we may all be on the street in four years.