Apr
27
Back on April 9th, Communism Now! was brodcasting from North Carolina and hosts Amy Goodman and Juan Gonzalez interviewed writer Chris Kromm. The show focused on the way the recession had impacted the economy of the Carolinas, North Carolina in particular. After criticizing South Carolina governor Mark Sanford for opposing the stimulus bill and initially refusing to take any funds, they then began to get fiscally conservative.
JUAN GONZALEZ: And your state has also, obviously for years, been known as a military-friendly state, and the presence of military bases there has a huge impact on the economy. And with the continuing wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, has that been one of the few bright sides, in terms of employment opportunities for the state?
CHRIS KROMM: Yeah, well, as much as you can say that depending on the military for your economy is a bright side.
Kromm added later (emphasis mine):
But yeah, clearly, and this is another way in which—it’s just kind of part of the fabric in many communities in the South, that the military is just part of it. And I think that’s—what people don’t quite understand is, people sometimes assume that Southerners just have a more conservative bent and embrace the military. I think it has more to do with the fact that many of them depend on the military. I know I have lots of relatives who are in the service or are connected to it somehow, and it’s just part of the way of life here. And I think that’s what people have to understand. And until you give people economic alternatives, ’til you find a way out for these Southern states being so dependent on the military, that’s where you’re going to find these situations where these states seem to embrace the foreign policy agenda, where I think in reality they don’t.
Hasn’t it been the conservative argument that welfare does not help the poor because it makes them dependent on the government rather than on themselves? That government spending crowds out investment in more productive areas? That people come to support a particular group of people or a political party not out of ideology but out of rational self-interest?
When South Carolina Rep. James Clyburn (D) insinuated that conservative governors like fellow South Carolinian Sanford were racist because they opposed funding that would in fact bog their states down with mandatory spending expansions, did Kromm object? As he explained in the quote above, “…until you give people economic alternatives, ’til you find a way out for these Southern states being so dependent on the [government program], that’s where you’re going to find these situations where these states seem to embrace the [domestic] policy agenda, where I think in reality they don’t.” By this logic, is Kromm a racist because he wants to cut off funding for the state?
I wrote earlier about the apparent clash of beliefs about government intervention by liberals. I referenced these inconsistencies from Americans United for the Separation of Church and State:
Here’s an excerpt from the Faith-Based Initiatives section, a policy most notably supported by George W. Bush but also by Barack Obama:
Americans in need of social services, such as welfare support, job training, emergency shelter and food/clothing supplies, should be able to get the help they need without being pressured to take part in religious activities. “Faith-based” initiatives, which propose turning the provision of social services over to religious groups, threaten individual rights and could lead to taxpayer support of religious ministries.
Bingo. Citizens on the taxpayers dime should not be in an indoctrination camp where they are forced to subscribe to a certain set of beliefs in exchange for aid.
I then used this argument for the separation of church and state to advocate the separation of economy and state, warning that this
argument could very well apply to President Obama’s plans for “national service,” which has yet to really be defined. The moral hazzard also exists for whatever kind of “green jobs” Obama wishes to create. Will we really be helping youths and those out of work? No. Their economic livelihood will become linked with that of the state and the re-election of certain officials. That is not empowerment. That’s slavery. As I said earlier, “Citizens on the taxpayers dime should not be in an indoctrination camp where they are forced to subscribe to a certain set of beliefs in exchange for aid.”
Government intervention harms the entity they are trying to assist by making them dependant on the government. Government aid may, at times, help a person or company get back on its feet, but it never ends there. They are indebted to the state and when faced with a decision between their own interest and those of the state, cannot bite the hand that feeds it.
We can get into the debates about spending, welfare, federalism, and defense another time. All I’m looking for here is consistency. Do government handouts foster dependency? Is this bad?
The answer to both is yes.
