A week ago, there was a special meeting in Concord at our State House. Why? Solely to increase the amount of money that would be put towards assistance for the poor for heating costs (yes, in NH, it can get cold and stay there for a while – not unusual to have a week where the temps can be -10 degrees F or below). So, you say – good show! On a given level, one might think that this is a good thing – government helping the poor!
Couple of problems – one, the $10 million the Democrat leadership pushed for is money that the State of NH already doesn’t have (the Democrat leadership have already borrowed millions to meet the budget, so now they’ll have to borrow more for this additional outlay.
This used to be considered charity. Done by individuals to help their neighbors – that used to be the NH way (in fact, still is – after 20 odd years, I am still amazed by the number of dinners, raffles, auctions, and the like that are put on for those in need). The question that always should be raised should be "what is the proper role of government?" Where is that line over which one should not cross? After all, if there is no line, then government will be responsible for everything.
Yes, the people that just brought you the failure and nationalization of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the housing industry, and pretty much the banking system will be responsible for all the little things in your life if this trend continues.
Anyways, one of our House reps, Rep. Nancy Elliott of Merrimack, wrote a letter describe her lament from a Conservative point of view (emphasis mine):
September 24, 2008. Today I committed political suicide. We had one of those touchy feely bills designed to be a political photo op for our governor who is running for reelection. It sounded so good in the press. The Legislature at the governor’s urging threw out the rules and gave $10 million additional dollars to the fuel assistance program to keep low income families from freezing to death. While I am 100% against letting our citizens freeze and voted for bills in the past to appropriate heating assistance, this time I was one of 12 who voted against this measure. Why would I vote against giving out money just before the election? Surely this will not play well with those waiting at the trough.
As I read that last sentence, I was reminded of what Lord MacCauley once stated:
"A democracy cannot survive as a permanent form of government. It can last only until its citizens discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority (who vote) will vote for those candidates promising the greatest benefits from the public purse, with the result that a democracy will always collapse from loose fiscal policies, always followed by a dictatorship."
So you tell me – where are we on the continuum of a democracy (yes, I know, we are a Republic, but it still applies!)? Rep. Elliot continues:
Many around me took this voter feeding frenzy into account as they cast their vote for what they were pretty sure was not the emergency it was portrayed to be.
Ah, emotion rules the day! Four Hundred or so reps feared saying "no" to their constituents.
My reasons are this: Prior legislation was with the promise of coming federal dollars. The original program was funded with federal monies, not state revenues. The dollars came in as promised. This time we have been promised around 25 million. We are spending that and the additional 10 million. There are some that say that the feds are thinking about sending us another 10 to 25 million. I have serious concerns that the feds will be sending any additional money given the problems with Wall Street. Here’s where I have a major problem, we are taking a program that has been a federal obligation and now making it a state obligation. I listened to the department head yesterday and it was clear that she felt that she would like to see this program expand much more. This program is not just for those in dire need. A family of 4 that makes $48,000 is covered. This is a redistribution of wealth. The family making $50,000 will now subsidize his neighbor that makes slightly less.
$48,000 is definitely middle class, yet it seems that those that like Big and Bigger Government believes that even at that level, they are economic victims. Again, I refer back to Lord MacCauley…
We knew what…
the cost of fuel was when we left in June. That would have been the time to put this bill in. It could have had a proper hearing with possible tweaking to be sure the money goes to our neediest citizens. The cost of fuel is actually lower today than it was then.
My main reason though is that we have appropriated these 10 million dollars out of the general fund, which will be over drawn when all our obligations are paid. The plan is to bond any money we are short. Our citizens will be paying the price of this 10 million dollar give away for 20 years or so. To bind the next generation with this expense is wrong for our state. There will never be an end of good and worthwhile causes, however we should not be spending money that is not there. Our state has already grossly overspent this term and we are on the brink of financial ruin. We as a state must tighten our belt or we will force ourselves and our children into and income or sales tax.
So, this is not for capital building or other capital (think long term asset) acquisition. This is simply a commodity buy, bought now with interest payments so as to make the purchase that much more expensive.
Sure, our legislators are looking at expenditures with frugal eyes….
There were some comments concerning this action – most of which meshed with mine:
‘m getting a strange feeling in observing this conversation. Am I the only one here who understands that taking money from some people and using it to give to others to help pay for their winter fuel isn’t…ahem…a legitimate function of government? And thus that this is just another example of getting people "hooked on the heroin of government assistance"? Of course, once hooked, they’ll reliably vote for the people who argue for more of their government assistance, but I don’t see that that is necessarily a good thing. And where the money comes from, so long as it is forced extractions from taxpayers somewhere, is also irrelevant.
Or am I out of step here?
Here, here! Civil society could and would take care of this problem if the government would step aside and let the people keep their own money. We have become isolated islands with no interconnection because the government has erased the need to rely on neighbors, families, and friends. America’s best attribute, according to Tocqueville, of a lively and helpful civil society has been destroyed at the hands of Big Government.
*****
This is why I was asking what the criteria is. I can understand the need to help people truly in need – the disabled, seniors on fixed incomes who just cannot afford to heat their homes as it is. But "in need" seems to include way too many people who could manage on their own. Theoretically, I’m "in need". Many of us are…to one degree or another. Do I think the government should be paying for my heat?
*****
My guess is that given the choice most voters would prefer to donate to more efficient and
effective charities than the government.
*****
We already have this…and it doesn’t require any input from the government or the voters.
They are called charities.
People donate to them all the time.
*****
Do you think that government should be helping "the disabled, seniors on fixed incomes," or others pay for their heating fuel? –Tim Condon
*****
I think the objection is, people who make $48,000 should be able to pay the increase in the fuel prices if they were not living on the edge. Sure fuel has doubled, but if you are living that close to the edge, you are likely overextended already.
If worse comes to worse, I could have two more roommates here, but I don’t because I value my privacy. So I will have to pay the price for that.
I could also sell my home…which is another possibility. I am wondering if this $48,000 mark is means tested?
