Conservative Positions

Do we as a nation have a responsibility for social programs? Yes, use the obvious ones such as Social Security, Medicare, etc. Short yes or no answer would be sufficient.

Quote:

A. No, the Federal government has no responsibility for social programs. The responsibilities of the Federal government are contained in the Constitution, and nowhere in that document is it charged with anything remotely resembling social programs.

However, beginning with the New Deal programs designed to restore American faith in the government and the economy started us down that road. I doubt that many conservatives would seriously propose total elimination of Social Security, or Medicare, an artifact of the LBJ years. Federal legislation designed to constrain "bad" and encourage "good" behavior from individuals and groups, or to insure that Constitutional provisions are being met, are not in my view "social programs", though the intent and effect may have been to insure social justice as public policy]

Thank you for your very erudite response to my question. I also thank you for the Constitutional lesson for I have not read it since my classes in college(I'm at the library now doing the reading).

My question changes: Taken you at your word, the Constitution does not provide for the social welfare of it's citizens. If I understand, you do not define social security as a welfare program. I have a problem there because of its title it seem to be a social program so how could it not be so?

But lets not quibble, my extended question to you is, no matter what system of governing any place in the world, we have, and will always have the "poor" or "disadvantaged" among us. This great mass of unwashed impact society in many ways, the most obvious being disease.

How are such people dealt with under a conservative political system?

If I take your meaning you say there is no help for such people, they are on their own. This seems a dangerous policy to me.

My second take is there no moral requirement from society as a whole to help those less fortunate? Again, more generally speaking the answer seems to be no.

Thanks

Well, Chirssee ... be so kind as to point out the Article, Section and sub-section that you think makes social programs a responsibility of any of the three branches of Federal government. I suppose you might suggest that the XVIIIth Amendment was a social program, but it was such a monstrous failure it had to be repealed by the XXIst Amendment.

Perhaps I and the professors in my Constitutional Law classes missed something in there. That, or my mind is fading faster than I thought. I'd appreciate finding out where the Foundering Fathers expressed their conviction that the Federal government should be responsible for social programs.

i've noticed that, usually, when conservatives argue the rejection of social programs, citing welfare, ss, etc., they fail to mention "faith based initiatives", "the program to promote marriage" and the like.

These programs exist because past Congresses and the Executives expanded upon the powers granted them under the Constitution.

Chrisee, <snip> Please cite the Article, Section and subsection that in your mind authorizes the Federal government to assume responsibility for social programs such as those adopted during the New Deal (most of which were condemned by the Supreme Court as un-Constitutional), and the Great Society.

You can't teach or encourage the individual initiative necessary for material success by rewarding careless and irresponsible behavior.

"The second challenge was in the courts. …the Supreme Court upheld the Social Security Act's constitutionality. As Justice Stone had predicted, the key was Congress's power to tax. Justice Cardozo, writing for the majority, cited Section 8 of Article I of the Constitution as the authority for Congress to levy taxes and to "spend money in aid of the general welfare.]

For the full article on the Origins of Social Security:
Source:
[http://www.francesperkins.org/fdr.html#_ednref1]

I wish to pursue this further. We established a legal foundation for the social program concept, and specifically Social Security. The next question is what is the conservative position on this programs in general and SS specifically.

A simple conservative yes or no.

If yes then the discussion is at an end and both liberals and conservatives agree there is a need for social programs.

If no, then what is the conservative response to the reality that there are peoples who cannot for whatever reason, sustain themselves in the basics of food, clothing and shelter? How do we, as a nation, solve this problem?

If I can have an answer to the no portion of the question I would appreciate it.

Thanks.

Don't Tread on me,

Efforts to encourage individual responsibility, or too more efficiently distribute money to social programs already in place, aren't strictly speaking social programs. If effective, these initiatives may reduce the costs of providing social programs, and that would be a good thing. I like Heinlein's quote, but since we are already obligated to social programing the least we can do is try to limit the cost to the taxpayers. I'd like to keep the Federal government out of the private lives of citizens and their businesses to the greatest extent possible while providing a level playing field for all.

I don't speak for anyone but myself.

Ditto

Q. Do we as a nation have a responsibility for social programs? Yes, use the obvious ones such as Social Security, Medicare, etc. Short yes or no answer would be sufficient.

A. Yes, we as a nation have a responsibility for social programs in the sense that we as a nation have a responsibility for the well being of all citizens, and social programs are a mechanism for enhancing the well being of a nation's people. The federal government perforce has a responsibility for the well being of all citizens. Within the last 75 or so years, notions have changed as respects the scope of this responsibility. The federal government has a clear responsibility for social programs to the extent that our elected federal officials have legislated that it assume such responsibility, however, it seems to me that the issues for debate are the definition of "well being," and the scope of the nation's (and by extension the federal government's) responsibility. In general, conservatives favor a greater degree of self-reliance than do liberals. Some would argue that this is a reflection of a meaness of spirit, but others appreciate that self-reliance enhances individual well being far more effectively than government hand outs.


Q. Do you believe in a smaller government across the board? This is more than just states rights, do conservatives want less government even at the local level?

A. While conservatives are, generally, in favor of less government, this has application only in the instance where it is perceived there is too much government, and since liberals spent quite a few decades enlarging government, there is reason for conservatives to perceive the scale being tipped too far one way. Conservatives are not anarchists. They do not espouse the absence of government, and so where government is just right there will be no conservative call for it to shrink.

Q. Do you believe that if we placed God/god in the government we would be different than other theocracy? Taliban comes to mind.

A. This depends upon what you mean by "Putting God/god in the government." If one believes in God, he's already there, and even if one does not, the fact is that he is. We find him in the Declaration of Independence, on our money, and the words of virtually every president who has served. His presence is not limited to the federal government: States with God in their motto include Arizona, whose motto is the Latin phrase "Ditat Deus," which means "God enriches;"Colorado which uses a Latin phrase - "Nil Sine Numine" - meaning "Nothing without the deity," Florida which claims, "In God We Trust;" Ohio which quotes Luke 2, saying, "With God, All Things Are Possible;" and South Dakota which holds that "Under God the People Rule."

However, this does not qualify our federal or state governments as theocracies. A theocracy is a government ruled by religious authority, and that, despite all of the hand wringing by many on the left, is not the case here in the US. If and when we allow religious authorities to assume governmental authority, then we will have a theocracy.

What we do have is a concern by some folks that religious authorities have too great an influence on our governmental authorities. Obviously, this is a matter of opinion and if one is inherently suspicious of or adverse to formal religion then one's concern will be that much greater.

I argue that there is nothing wrong or dangerous with people organizing, politically, around their religious beliefs. If you allow your minister, priest, rabbi or imman to inform your vote, you are not helping to create a theocracy.

History is replete with examples of the ill influence of religion on society, but so is it with examples of the value created by religion. Since humans are far more of what religion is about than God, it shouldn't be surprising that as a human institution, religion has had a less than perfect track record. The same can be said of every human institution: governments, police, judiciaries, charities, political parties, hospitals, universities, et al.

I know of no reasonable conservative who is advancing the establishment of a theocracy. George Bush may or may not be more informed by his religious beliefs than other recent presidents (but think of Jimmy Carter), but this hardly means that he is in the thrall of any religious authority.

Q. Do you believe, as Terri Schaivo showed us, should our courts, like the Muslim courts, decide such moral issues of faithfulness to ones spouse, failure to pay our debts and any conduct of character? Am I being a good conservative Christian when I turn in my neighbor for swearing at his children or cheating on his spouse?

A. This question, as it is framed, more than other is what suggests to me that you are a bit disingenuous as respects your professed lack of bias.

First of all, I think you have grossly mischaracterized the Schaivo affair. None of the "moral" issues which you cite came before the courts, nor did congress ask for them to be considered. Secondly you have demonstrated either a foolish misunderstanding of conservatism, or a bias against it in your question concerning whether you should "turn in a neighbor" for swearing or adultry.

If the courts erred in the Schaivo case, I'm at a loss to identify the error, and so am also at a loss to understand how the Schaivo case "showed us" that our courts are anything like the Sharia Courts of Islam.

Now, I suppose the argument can be made that the Republican controlled congress overstepped it's authority in passing legislature that required the case to be heard by a federal judge, but, frankly, I see this as much ado about nothing. Congress didn't mandate how the court would rule and, clearly, the court ruled contrary to the wishes of the legislattion's supporters.

As should be expected, it is not a simple feat to draw a bright line between the Law and Morality. Since we expect our judges to be governed by our collective morality when our written laws are ambiguous, it is a, at best, ironic that anyone would questions the courts' authority in the realm of morality.

Q. What I am trying to find out is what exactly the conservatives believe in, what path are they leading us down. Since I don't lead I must follow regardless of who has the power.

A. Since no group of people is totally monlithic in its though, you won't find a ready answer, but if you want to get a sense of what conservative thought consists of, I would suggest that you read magazines like the National Review and The Weekly Standard. Also try reading the editorial page of the Wall Stree Journal. Look to for the columns of David Brooks, George Wills, Thomas Sowell, Charles Krauthammer, Walter E. Williams, Peggy Noonan, and Mona Charen

For books, you might try William Buckley, Leo Strauss, Ayn Rand, PJ O'Rourke, Milton Friedman, F.A Hayek, Pat Buchanan, Peter Hitchens, Margaret Thatcher, Edmund Burke, Irving Kristol, Alexis de Tocqueville and Adam Smith.


Q. I'm looking for the conservative mission statement, the vision, the leadership rather than simply carping about the money, the ethics, the lying, cheating, stealing, demagoguery and such because all politicians have done so and will continue to do so.

A. See prior answer, but of course there is no single conservative mission statement. If you want to know what the current conservative leadership thinks, pay attention to what they say.

The responsibilities of the Federal government are contained in the Constitution, and nowhere in that document is it charged with anything remotely resembling social programs.

Apparently I was mistaken in my belief that Social Security had not been challenged in the Supreme Court.

The constitutional basis of the Social Security Act was uncertain. The basic problem is that under the "reserve clause" of the Constitution (the 10th Amendment) powers not specifically granted to the federal government are reserved for the States or the people. When the federal government seeks to expand its influence in new areas it must find some basis in the Constitution to justify its action. Obviously, the Constitution did not specifically mention the operation of a social insurance system as a power granted to the federal government! The Committee on Economic Security (CES) struggled with this and was unsure whether to claim the commerce clause or the broad power to levy taxes and expend funds to "provide for the general welfare," as the basis for the programs in the Act. Ultimately, the CES opted for the taxing power as the basis for the new program, and the Congress agreed, but how the courts would see this choice was very much an open question.

Already in 1934 lower courts had begun overturning major parts of the New Deal program. Potentially the most serious threat came from rulings invalidating the Agricultural Adjustment Act (AAA), which used the same broad power to levy taxes for the general welfare as the basis for its program of agricultural price supports and controls. Lower courts ruled this unconstitutional and the Supreme Court followed in January 1936, ruling that ". . .a statutory plan to regulate and control agricultural production, [is] a matter beyond the powers delegated to the federal government. . ." There was a silver lining in the cloud, however, because the same opinion ultimately sided with Hamilton on the larger question of a strict or a flexible interpretation of the general welfare clause by holding that: " . . .the power of Congress to authorize expenditure of public moneys for public purposes is not limited by the direct grants of legislative power found in the Constitution."

Don't Tread on Me,

Personally, I don't favor funneling Federal money through religious organizations. Federal legislation can, and does, encourage behavior. Deductions in the tax code encourage private charity, and gives the married couple a tax break. I don't have any problems personally with that sort of Federal encouragement, so long as it doesn't become terribly intrusive into the lives of private citizens.