"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America." --preamble, US Constitution

There's a lot of discussion among activists about whether the government bears responsibility for our upkeep. One of the most frequently used cites the preamble to the US Constitution, quoted above, and its clause "to promote the general welfare".

The flaw in their logic is the qualifier "general" before the word "welfare". Roads are "general welfare" because they improve the lives of the whole community rather than a specific individual. Hydroelectric dams, and even certain telecommunications services would qualify as well, because they similarly improve the lives of the whole community (as well as improve means of delivery for defense services, another stipulation in the preamble). Food stamps and  housing subsidies do not, as those are geared at improving the lives of INDIVIDUALS, not the general public.

"Ahhh," the liberal will argue, "but if you improve the quality of life of the poorest among us, you improve the economy as a whole". And, in fact, this is true. The question then becomes whether our current system of subsidies truly improves the quality of life. When I see someone who receives $400 or more a month in food stamps standing in line at the food bank, I'm inclined to think not.

You see, I can give you all the money in the world, but I can't teach you how to spend it. I can't teach you, for instance, that the delayed gratification in getting a 19 inch TV until you can AFFORD the 52 inch big screen will not only save you hundreds of dollars in interest if you buy through the rent to own place or with payday loans, but will, in fact, save you three figures annually on your electric bill. I can't teach you that if you make your food purchasing decisions around the weekly sales flyers and actively hunt down coupons, you can save 50% or more off of your food purchasing costs. I can't teach you how simply replacing your regular light bulb with a compact flourescent will save you FAR MORE than the inflated costs of the flourescent bulbs. Because, you see, those are the kinds of things one only learns if one HAS to live on a limited income. Families who have to struggle from paycheck to paycheck are FAR more likely to acquire the financial stewardship tools that will improve their financial standing over the long term.

An interesting argument entered the discussion today, one from a self professed liberal. The argument was that it was our BIBLICAL responsibility. While wholly ironic when you consider it comes from a representative of the end of the political spectrum that is trying to chase away what they perceive as the "boogeyman" of religion, and who consistently clamour for separation of church and state, we'll consider the argument on its merits: Does the Bible teach that GOVERNMENT is responsible for charity?

Short answer: NO! While it is true that the city of Sodom was destroyed because of its refusal to help the poor and needy (Ezekial 16:49), this is not the compelling case that it appears to be. For, as every Sunday School child in America knows, Abraham pleaded with God, who agreed to spare the city if ten righteous men were found in it. This makes it patently clear that the destruction of Sodom was for the sins of the INDIVIDUALS, and not of the government.

If you feel that the need for the government to keep our homeless off the streets falls under the "general welfare" provision, they should do so in the most cost effective means possible, as they are stewards of the resources they possess. Money should not be given to meet a food or housing shortage, FOOD AND HOUSING should be given to meet a food and housing shortage. And that food and housing should be as basic as possible, with no frills whatsoever. A diet adequate to properly nourish the individual should be provided, and tenements with the barest of necessities. In short, poorhouses. And these poorhouses should be located away from the urban populations where the criminal activities of certain elements among them will not affect the general populace. Those who wish to work should be provided the opportunity and trasnsportation, but should be required to put a portion of their pay into their support within the community.

Frankly, I find the above scenario nightmarish and frightening. I wouldn't want to see it come to pass in any context. But if such programs are the responsibility of the government, it is the government's EQUAL responsibility to ensure that they are enforced with the greatest efficiency. The sad truth of the matter is, we offer better benefits to many of our poor who do nothing to earn their standard of living than we do our armed services personnel, who stand on the wall to defend us. And that should stop.

To answer my title question, I do not believe governments are IN ANY WAY responsible for our personal welfare. I believe that we should encourage private charities to meet the needs of individuals, and let government get on with the business of governing. They're having a hard enough time doing THAT.