Good intentions & bad results
By Ralph R. Reiland
Published: Sunday, Dec. 30, 2012, 8:39 p.m.
“If there is any lesson in the history of ideas, it is that good intentions tell you nothing about the actual consequences,” stated Thomas Sowell, economist at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University.
Similarly, Nobel Prize-winning economist Milton Friedman warned of the mixture of good intentions and big government. “Concentrated power,” he cautioned, “is not rendered harmless by the good intentions of those who create it.”
French writer Albert Camus (1913-1960) was awarded the Nobel Prize for literature in 1957. “The evil that is in the world,” he asserted, “almost always comes from ignorance, and good intentions may do as much harm as malevolence if they lack understanding.”
Aldous Huxley (1894-1963), British essayist and novelist, stated it more boldly: “Hell isn't merely paved with good intentions; it's walled and roofed with them. Yes, and furnished too.”
In “Brave New World,” a prophetic novel published in 1932 — prior to Stalin's purges and before Hitler came to power in Germany — Huxley described a tyrannical future where totally controlled and dehumanized slaves would “love their servitude.”
In the forthcoming society envisioned by Huxley, a technologically proficient and well-intentioned government replaced self-reliance and individual freedom with security, dependence, safety and drug-induced happiness — plus an abundance of carnal pleasures, commanded by the state's “everyone belongs to everyone else” decree.
What's required for the establishment of this “Brave New World” is putting the state up front in all matters and assigning individuals to the back burner. What's essential for implementation is for man to be precast, molded and enslaved to the program.
Launched in 1964 by President Lyndon B. Johnson, the “unconditional war on poverty in America” might arguably be the most expensive and longest-running example of Sowell's warning that “good intentions tell you nothing about the actual consequences.”
$15 trillion ‘war'
From 1964 until now, the federal, local and state governments have spent $15 trillion in the war on poverty — $12 trillion by the federal government and $3 trillion by state and local governments.
In “The American Welfare State: How We Spend Nearly $1 Trillion a Year Fighting Poverty — and Fail,” Michael Tanner, director of health and welfare studies at the Cato Institute, reports that the 2012 poverty rate “has risen to 15.1 percent of Americans, the highest level in nearly a decade.”
In 2012, “the federal government will spend more than $668 billion on at least 126 different programs to fight poverty,” in addition to “welfare spending by state and local governments, which adds $284 billion to that figure,” writes Tanner.
On a per capita basis, this roughly $1 trillion a year in welfare spending “amounts to $20,610 for every poor person in America, or $61,830 per poor family of three,” explains Tanner.
In contrast, the Census Bureau reports that the median household income in the United States dropped to $50,054 in 2011, the latest figure available, down 8 percent from 2007, the year before the recession began.
“Welfare spending increased significantly under President George W. Bush and has exploded under President Barack Obama,” states Tanner. “In fact, since President Obama took office, federal welfare spending has increased by 41 percent, more than $193 billion per year. Despite this government largess, more than 46 million Americans continue to live in poverty.”
Bottom line, “The poverty rate is perilously close to where we began more than 40 years ago,” after $15 trillion in spending, Tanner reports. “Clearly, we are doing something wrong.”
Ralph R. Reiland is an associate professor of economics at Robert Morris University and a local restaurateur. His email: firstname.lastname@example.org
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- Garden Q&A: Firecracker vine OK for trellis?
- Starkey: Penguins’ arrogance astounding
- Man dead in Beaver County brush fire
- Worshippers welcome Easter’s dawn in Pittsburgh’s North Side
- Police: McKees Rocks woman had child on board when she crashed after chase
- Matt Calvert’s goal in double OT evens series for Blue Jackets
- Draftees’ longevity key for NFL success
- Penguins’ Gibbons scores twice but leaves with apparent injury
- Pope Francis inspires incredible optimism
- South Side’s Whiskey Barrel Flats condos mix modern, rugged styles
- NFL notebook: Pryor will be cut if he’s not traded