Dear Editor,
I/we must all thank Mr. Sherwood Lowe for his expansive, even exhaustive, welfare state thinking, with its recipes of obligations, panoramic breadth, and far-reaching implications. Having said that, and though I consider Mr. Lowe, a brother beyond the blur of skin and possible philosophical differences, I take the liberty of seeing some of what he presented in another way, approaching with separate visions.
I am for a helping hand from the biggest of big brothers. I am familiar with the multitudes of those without the sufficiency required for a basic existence. Not one with dignity, or of some quality, but of a most fundamental survival. I should know, as I have had early and long relationship with not the substance of such, but of some of that, which drains and diminishes. I would like to see cushions, a little space, a portion of the tangibles that make for a share of pride. My thinking is that the state can and should be there, for those at the bottom of the pile; those that descend, through catastrophe and force of circumstances, those that just seem to be dogged by the odds ever against them, by those confluences that terminate at their door. The state must be there to help make ends meet, but not be an end onto itself, a settled expectation that dilutes, even annihilates, initiative, independence, and dignity. I think that such becomes the case, which unconsciously or not, invariably becomes part of the webbing of chronic, lifelong dependency. It is not what any of our cultural or biological, maybe even anthropological, precedents instilled in us. It is not how the mind should be wired.
It is why I think that Mr. Lowe went too far in some of his recommendations. I am inseparable with the poor and elderly, the needy college bound. I am against high earners, though we can afford it, given oil; because what the state does then is sponsor another strain of the plutocracy; confirms the existence of wealth gaps; and perfects the extension of such gaps. I fear a rentier society, and would object extremely strenuously to such. I tender Pradoville as the unofficial (and underhanded) public gallery of the exhibition that Mr. Lowe’s intended and unintended consequences spawns; or state-enriched political and largely racial caste. I am all for the state to be there for those in need: those that require that extra boost to get from A to B, meaning, the barrios to the bustle, then boardrooms. The state must be present to give charge battery, refill the tank, and then let run on own speed. But beyond that, I say: proceed with caution, or not at all.
For most single mothers that the state feeds a child is fed. Some other habits are also fed: absentee fathers, irresponsible parenthood, alcohol and narcotics and, as always, an immense dependency syndrome. A sense of entitlement comes. There is spiritual identification with doing good, but doing too much of anything results in the debilitating; diminishing returns, many times to zero. I can relate to the malaise of those waiting for the monthly financial rush from the benevolent state, because I have lived there and among them. The upside probabilities are bleak; in this instance, the apprehensions are of those with too much time on their hands, and not knowing what to do with any of it; not motivated enough, interested enough, to rise and earn by proverbial sweat. From that I shrink. It is why I argue against any permanency of President Joe Biden’s Child Tax Credit in the United States beyond this year; had a problem before with former President Granger’s cash million. Though the viral cataclysm has savaged many, especially the poverty stricken and minorities more disparately, my idea would be to get people back on their feet, as opposed to fostering a mindset that the state is there, and always should be, and will be.
It is better that we equip the lesser in our society to be better, to give tools, skills, resources, to make them self-sufficient. Tax breaks, educational incentives, expanded NIS, distressed circumstances, targeted (but limited) social welfare. Because when we make our model universal there will be welfare kings and queens, but of the noblest corporate varieties; and along with middle class, professional class, and other princely plunderers of the state’s magnanimities. We have them here already, and they are well aided and abetted by political groups (without exception), attorneys and accountants, who enlighten them on how to extricate more from the state, prosper from it. Get away with it, too. Like Mr. Lowe, I am against the ‘redistributive’ process of taxing the rich to make good for the poor. The oil is there; that is, if the political scoundrels leave anything for the peasants. They used to call them the lumpen proletariat; in these heady days, working class and local content suffice.
In sum, Mr. Lowe has articulated the holistic. I give a nod to the good; I prefer to hack way (largely on own) through the thickets that resist clear paths in life. Others should be incentivized accordingly; then let them free. The hunger in the heart, fire within the belly, drive of the spirit must not be doused or subsidized too much; or forever. For that would be the state failing its charges, or making that of all of them.
Sincerely,
GHK Lall
