CLINICAL TOXICOLOGY 9(1), pp. 119-121 (1976)
Clinical Toxicology Downloaded from informahealthcare.com by North Carolina State University on 12/02/14 For personal use only.
EDITORIAL
On Losing Our Freedom
CASPAR W. WEINBERGER
After five and a half years in various posts in Washington, I come away with a deep concern that if the enormous growth of o u r pervasive Federal government continues, it may take from u s our personal freedom a t the same time it shatters the foundations of our economic system. Federal government spending has increased 83 p e r cent in five years, and is now running about $360 billion a year-and mounting. About one-third of this total is spent by HEW; m o r e than half the budget is spent for Federal domestic social programs. These programs, consisting mainly of uncoordinated, spasmodic responses to a variety of needs, real and fancied, are threatening to bring u s to national insolvency. They are also an increasing intrusion into the lives and affairs of all of us. The whole human resource field is under the lash of Federal law: doctors, hospitals, teachers, college presidents, students, volunteer agencies, city halls and state capitolsall are subject to this o r that control from Washington. Nor are these programs static. For example, it will probably cost $17 billion more next fiscal year than we are now spending just to maintain the existing social programs administered by HEW, even if there a r e no eligibility o r benefit increases. But Congress does not leave benefits o r eligibility unchanged. If these programs continue growing for the next two decades a t the s a m e pace they have in the last two, we will spend more than half of our g r o s s national product for domestic social programs alone by the year 2000. In other words, when 119
ED IT ORIA L
120
the century turns, half the American people will be working to support the other half, unless we do something about it now.
Clinical Toxicology Downloaded from informahealthcare.com by North Carolina State University on 12/02/14 For personal use only.
MAINTAINING T H E SYSTEM It would be virtually impossible to maintain our free-enterpriseincentive, capitalist system if we had to use 50 per cent of the GNP to pay for domestic social programs alone. And if we lose our freeenterprise- incentive system, we will destroy the system that has brought more benefits to more people at home and throughout the world than any other system since recorded history began. There is no way in which we can maintain the economic growth we need, achieved through the investment of surplus capital in job-producing activities, if we have to use that surplus capital to pay for enormous deficits resulting from spending far beyond our income for social and welfare programs. Why do we do this 7 Primarily because Congress seems to believe that the road to popularity and re-election is to say yes to every demanc for every increase in all existing programs and to agree to most demand for new ones. One of the tragedies here i s that much of this spending, well-intentioned though it is, is not effective and does not serve o r help the poor. Welfare, for example, is a confused jumble of cash stipends that vary from state to state, intermixed with such programs as food stamps, Medicaid, housing subsidies, clothing allowance!: even proposals for fuel stamps, and many others. Eligibility for these programs is frequently based on illogical and undesirable criteria such as the necessity of having a father absent before a family can qualify. Rarely is there any effective work requirement attached to publicassistance programs. In short, much of our public assistance today offers incentives for people not to work, encourages family breakups and discourages attempts to secure somewhat higher incomes. A P I E C E M E A L PROGRAM
There i s a way to end the welfare mess, and it is by adopting a completely new system that would be coordinated with and administered through our tax system. We should abolish our piecemeal welfare program right now and substitute a simple cash grant, based on need, measured by income and payable only to those who meet a strong work requirement if they are able to work. This new approach would treat equally everyone actually in need.
Clinical Toxicology Downloaded from informahealthcare.com by North Carolina State University on 12/02/14 For personal use only.
ED IT ORIA L
121
It would eliminate the incentives we now have to go on welfare and stay there. And it would end the intrusiveness now required by many laws, the demands to look a t and control every welfare recipient's personal budget and much of h i s personal life. It is this last point, the l o s s of personal freedom, that is inevitably involved in such governmental growth. That is the most critical. Many of the welfare and public-assistance programs now seem to have as their goal the equalizing of everyone's income and situation, r a t h e r than trying to help people really in need until they can free themselves from dependency. But this equalizing of income for all is egalitarian tyranny, not equal opportunity. Equal opportunity means the right to compete equally for the r e w a r d s of excellence, not to share in i t s fruits regardless of personal effort. Equal opportunity, based on excellence benefits all. By rewarding excellence, we s h a r e in the fruits of genius. The egalitarians m i s s this point. They would divide the wealth equally, overlooking the crucial fact that all human progress throughout history owes i t s origins to the talented and the enterprising. We must keep a system that allows u s to use the talents and excellence of all, no matter what their origin. A QUEST FOR EXCELLENCE
Of course, we must protect and help the most vulnerable m e m b e r s of society. But if we do not persevere in the quest for excellence, then our reward will be a dearth of excellence. Those who have escaped the gray, faceless m a s s e s of the world's closed societies understand that fact. We, who have perhaps taken the need f o r quality so long for granted, seem now to be in danger of forgetting its importance. O u r country was built by people of energy, daring and ingenuitythe Edisons, the Wright brothers, the Helen Kellers, the Fultons, the Carnegies, the great musicians and artists and countless others b r i m ming with d r e a m s and filled with the courage to reach out and realize those d r e a m s whatever the odds. The r e a l social agenda of America, still unfinished, is to discover and reward excellence wherever we find it-under a black skin, a white skin, in a female o r male, in a Catholic, a Jew, a Protestant o r an agnostic. That is the real purpose of equal opportunity. If we fail to see this as our r e a l agenda, we r i s k delivering our destinies over to the cold and lifeless grip of a distant egalitarian government whose sole purpose is to ensure an equally mediocre existence for everyone.
Clinical Toxicology Downloaded from informahealthcare.com by North Carolina State University on 12/02/14 For personal use only.
EDITORIAL
On Losing Our Freedom
CASPAR W. WEINBERGER
After five and a half years in various posts in Washington, I come away with a deep concern that if the enormous growth of o u r pervasive Federal government continues, it may take from u s our personal freedom a t the same time it shatters the foundations of our economic system. Federal government spending has increased 83 p e r cent in five years, and is now running about $360 billion a year-and mounting. About one-third of this total is spent by HEW; m o r e than half the budget is spent for Federal domestic social programs. These programs, consisting mainly of uncoordinated, spasmodic responses to a variety of needs, real and fancied, are threatening to bring u s to national insolvency. They are also an increasing intrusion into the lives and affairs of all of us. The whole human resource field is under the lash of Federal law: doctors, hospitals, teachers, college presidents, students, volunteer agencies, city halls and state capitolsall are subject to this o r that control from Washington. Nor are these programs static. For example, it will probably cost $17 billion more next fiscal year than we are now spending just to maintain the existing social programs administered by HEW, even if there a r e no eligibility o r benefit increases. But Congress does not leave benefits o r eligibility unchanged. If these programs continue growing for the next two decades a t the s a m e pace they have in the last two, we will spend more than half of our g r o s s national product for domestic social programs alone by the year 2000. In other words, when 119
ED IT ORIA L
120
the century turns, half the American people will be working to support the other half, unless we do something about it now.
Clinical Toxicology Downloaded from informahealthcare.com by North Carolina State University on 12/02/14 For personal use only.
MAINTAINING T H E SYSTEM It would be virtually impossible to maintain our free-enterpriseincentive, capitalist system if we had to use 50 per cent of the GNP to pay for domestic social programs alone. And if we lose our freeenterprise- incentive system, we will destroy the system that has brought more benefits to more people at home and throughout the world than any other system since recorded history began. There is no way in which we can maintain the economic growth we need, achieved through the investment of surplus capital in job-producing activities, if we have to use that surplus capital to pay for enormous deficits resulting from spending far beyond our income for social and welfare programs. Why do we do this 7 Primarily because Congress seems to believe that the road to popularity and re-election is to say yes to every demanc for every increase in all existing programs and to agree to most demand for new ones. One of the tragedies here i s that much of this spending, well-intentioned though it is, is not effective and does not serve o r help the poor. Welfare, for example, is a confused jumble of cash stipends that vary from state to state, intermixed with such programs as food stamps, Medicaid, housing subsidies, clothing allowance!: even proposals for fuel stamps, and many others. Eligibility for these programs is frequently based on illogical and undesirable criteria such as the necessity of having a father absent before a family can qualify. Rarely is there any effective work requirement attached to publicassistance programs. In short, much of our public assistance today offers incentives for people not to work, encourages family breakups and discourages attempts to secure somewhat higher incomes. A P I E C E M E A L PROGRAM
There i s a way to end the welfare mess, and it is by adopting a completely new system that would be coordinated with and administered through our tax system. We should abolish our piecemeal welfare program right now and substitute a simple cash grant, based on need, measured by income and payable only to those who meet a strong work requirement if they are able to work. This new approach would treat equally everyone actually in need.
Clinical Toxicology Downloaded from informahealthcare.com by North Carolina State University on 12/02/14 For personal use only.
ED IT ORIA L
121
It would eliminate the incentives we now have to go on welfare and stay there. And it would end the intrusiveness now required by many laws, the demands to look a t and control every welfare recipient's personal budget and much of h i s personal life. It is this last point, the l o s s of personal freedom, that is inevitably involved in such governmental growth. That is the most critical. Many of the welfare and public-assistance programs now seem to have as their goal the equalizing of everyone's income and situation, r a t h e r than trying to help people really in need until they can free themselves from dependency. But this equalizing of income for all is egalitarian tyranny, not equal opportunity. Equal opportunity means the right to compete equally for the r e w a r d s of excellence, not to share in i t s fruits regardless of personal effort. Equal opportunity, based on excellence benefits all. By rewarding excellence, we s h a r e in the fruits of genius. The egalitarians m i s s this point. They would divide the wealth equally, overlooking the crucial fact that all human progress throughout history owes i t s origins to the talented and the enterprising. We must keep a system that allows u s to use the talents and excellence of all, no matter what their origin. A QUEST FOR EXCELLENCE
Of course, we must protect and help the most vulnerable m e m b e r s of society. But if we do not persevere in the quest for excellence, then our reward will be a dearth of excellence. Those who have escaped the gray, faceless m a s s e s of the world's closed societies understand that fact. We, who have perhaps taken the need f o r quality so long for granted, seem now to be in danger of forgetting its importance. O u r country was built by people of energy, daring and ingenuitythe Edisons, the Wright brothers, the Helen Kellers, the Fultons, the Carnegies, the great musicians and artists and countless others b r i m ming with d r e a m s and filled with the courage to reach out and realize those d r e a m s whatever the odds. The r e a l social agenda of America, still unfinished, is to discover and reward excellence wherever we find it-under a black skin, a white skin, in a female o r male, in a Catholic, a Jew, a Protestant o r an agnostic. That is the real purpose of equal opportunity. If we fail to see this as our r e a l agenda, we r i s k delivering our destinies over to the cold and lifeless grip of a distant egalitarian government whose sole purpose is to ensure an equally mediocre existence for everyone.
