Government Creates Poverty
Stossel at reason.com on how the government has "helped" Native Americans right out of the need to help themselves. Instead of seeking to become entrepreneurs and make it on their own, ambitious Native Americans seek to become bureaucrats to manage who gets the government handouts:
The government has made most Indian tribes wards of the state. Government manages their land, provides their health care, and pays for housing and child care. Twenty different departments and agencies have special "native American" programs. The result? Indians have the highest poverty rate, nearly 25 percent, and the lowest life expectancy of any group in America. Sixty-six percent are born to single mothers.Nevertheless, Indian activists want more government "help."
It is intuitive to assume that, when people struggle, government "help" is the answer. The opposite is true. American groups who are helped the most, do the worst.
Consider the Lumbees of Robeson County, N.C.--a tribe not recognized as sovereign by the government and therefore ineligible for most of the "help" given other tribes. The Lumbees do much better than those recognized tribes.
Lumbees own their homes and succeed in business. They include real estate developer Jim Thomas, who used to own the Sacramento Kings, and Jack Lowery, who helped start the Cracker Barrel Restaurants. Lumbees started the first Indian-owned bank, which now has 12 branches.
The Lumbees' wealth is not from casino money.
"We don't have any casinos. We have 12 banks," says Ben Chavis, another successful Lumbee businessman. He also points out that Robeson County looks different from most Indian reservations.
"There's mansions. They look like English manors. I can take you to one neighborhood where my people are from and show you nicer homes than the whole Sioux reservation."
Despite this success, professional "victims" activists want Congress to make the Lumbees dependent--like other tribes. U.S. Rep. Mike McIntyre (D-N.C.), has introduced the Lumbee Recognition Act, which would give the Lumbees the same "help" other tribes get--about $80 million a year. Some members of the tribe support the bill.
Of course they do. People like to freeload.
Stossel acknowledges:
Yes, many years ago white people stole the Indians' land and caused great misery. And yes, the government signed treaties with the tribes that make Indians "special." But that "specialness" has brought the Indians socialism. It's what keeps them dependent and poor.
What's the solution? I don't think you can get Native Americans off the government dole. Does this mean they're just a people who are forever doomed to helplessness with a hand held out?
Anyone who has spent time on or near Indian reservations ought to be against this. The article has it exactly right: handouts are a long-term disaster. This is true of Indians, it is true in Africa, it is true of welfare moms - it is true everywhere. Handouts for short-term problems, perhaps, but never long-term.
If you really want to help the Indians, you would eliminate the reservations (turn them into normal property), eliminate all of the special programs, and force the people on the reservations to join the real world.
Of course, those who profit from the handouts will be against this, and will call up tear-jerking stories from hundreds of years ago. Guess what, it's over. Time to look forward and get on with life.
a_random_guy at April 29, 2011 7:37 AM
Even on the most poverty-stricken reserves, chiefs & their cronies earn huge tax-free salaries (from taxpayers money) because they keep all the money that's supposed to be shared out among the whole tribe for themselves. Then they point their fingers and shout "look how my people are suffering! Pay more, white man!". Government obliges by forking over more money, and the chiefs get richer & fatter while their people sink deeper into poverty, in an endless loop. See here for a typical example:
http://www.thestar.com/news/investigations/government/article/883421--rotting-first-nation-wealthy-chief
The thing to remember about Native poverty is that some people get rich from it.
Martin at April 29, 2011 10:34 AM
We have 3 million people in the Department of Defense, the vast bulk in lifetime employment-pension-health care set-ups, all at taxpayer expense.
They are dependent on the federal government, and they vote.
The Indians have plenty of company.
BOTU at April 29, 2011 1:53 PM
Quote of the day: "People like to freeload."
59% of all Americans are getting a government check of one type or another. Perhaps we are mostly people who are "doomed to helplessness with a hand held out."
Pirate Jo at April 29, 2011 4:07 PM
If the Bureau of Indian Affairs was shut down today, the Indian under their supervision would be better off by tomorrow.
To see proof that government is the cause of poverty, you have only to look at the situation in Juárez/El Paso. On one side of the border you see cardboard shacks up the side of the mountain, on the other is a mostly middle-class city. What's different? The weather? The natural resources? The soil?
The important difference is a government whose primary distinguishing characteristic is corruption. A corruption that has permeated the entire culture to the point that the only complaints you hear on the Mexican side about the corruption is from those who think they aren't getting "their share" of the graft. Unfortunately, the other side of the border is incrementally sliding into the same situation, but it hasn't gotten to the level of Mexico. Yet.
TX CHL Instructor at April 29, 2011 4:22 PM
"We have 3 million people in the Department of Defense, the vast bulk in lifetime employment-pension-health care set-ups, all at taxpayer expense. They are dependent on the federal government, and they vote. The Indians have plenty of company."
Ah, the one-note song is heard again.
Why don't you name the risk you've taken for your job?
Coming from one who never served, your protest means nothing. The lowest Marine private has scraped better things off his feet than you.
You should be pleased that when President Clinton took credit for "reducing the number of Federal employees", he was really talking about the RIF in military forces. Have you noticed your obsession with less than a hundredth of the population? Your tax dollar is going to feed people generating paperwork to make you miserable, not guarantee you never have to worry if the helicopter overhead is yours. You actually get something for your dollar paying the soldier. What did you get from the housing crash, when Fannie & Freddie gave your $$ away?
If you want a more practical approach, with less contempt for your person, then observe the principles put forth by J. Edwards Deming, who proved conclusively again and again that those in charge of the process determine its effectiveness.
And it's been shown to you time and again that social spending far outstrips military spending. Who did the bailouts go to, again?
You cannot logically blame the soldier for his orders. Don't like them? Tough shit. You've never done a lick of work to make them un-necessary.
Meanwhile, the implication that you should have a safe job shuffling paperwork with a pension while Private Paraplegic gets nothing after he's discharged, because he's too damned stupid to get your job, classes you as offal.
Yes, I fed the troll.
Radwaste at April 29, 2011 4:50 PM
Radwaste-
It is curious, is it not, that there is a call to call entitlements, but not federal agencies?
I dislike the level of entitlements we have today. But, at least when I pay into Social Security, I will get something back. Same on Medicare. The money comes back to me, minus a cut for federal administration, minus some progressive mumbo-jumbo, but largely it comes back.
When my paycheck is confiscated and sucked into coprolitic federal agencies such as HUD, Defense, Homeland Security, the VA or USDA, the money goes into a federal employee's pocket, a contractor's pocket, a campaign contributor's pocket, and never comes back to me. It goes into the lard black-hole. Pure waste.
And what makes me a troll and not you?
BOTU at April 29, 2011 5:53 PM
... when I pay into Social Security, I will get something back. Same on Medicare.
Lucky. You must be old.
Pirate Jo at April 29, 2011 6:14 PM
Almost all Lumbees are LDS (Mormon). They believe they are the descendants of the Children of Israel. They are sort of like native American Jews. Valid or not, Mormon beliefs lead people to be successful in life. Except for one, every Mormon I have ever known was a good person.
ken in sc at April 29, 2011 6:52 PM
"And what makes me a troll and not you?"
1) That you've been shown that a) Defense is not the problem you make it out to be, and b) pensions, per se, are not the problem at all;
2) Your presentation moves the goalposts. You complain about pensions for military personnel, then about the contractors. Your complaint is with Congress, not the military. Perhaps you have not read the Constitution.
3) These things are merely a fraction of the characteristics which show your shallow thinking on this issue.
4) What other purpose do you have as the self-declared BOTU?
And the troll gets another bite.
Radwaste at April 29, 2011 8:56 PM
What do you get by funding the substandard care given to vetreans? Well, if incoming soilders were told that in the even of lost limbs, shrapnell filled organs and so on and so forth that they would have to pay for the medical treatment of wound recieved defending this country on their own with no help and support what so ever from the populas whos peace filled lives they made possible, well, I'd be willing to bet you wouldnt get any new soilders to defend your fat anal probing ass
lujlp at April 30, 2011 12:00 AM
There are quite a number of un-recognized tribes around here. They didn't appear to be doing any better than the recognized tribes back when. Now that all (or close to it) recognized tribes have casinos they are doing much better.
Doesn't seem to make a difference other than the casinos.
The Former Banker at April 30, 2011 2:46 AM
"That you've been shown that a) Defense is not the problem you make it out to be, and b) pensions, per se, are not the problem at all;"
Well, that comment qualifies you as a troll. The defense department takes 20 % of the budget, which is not a little change.
How do you justify this when we are fighting goat herders, who mainly spend their time in the caves? It takes one million dollars to keep alive one U.S. lowest ranked foot soldier.
http://cryptogon.com/?p=12126
A few are making a lot of money at public expense. If this does not make you mad, you could be a troll.
chang at April 30, 2011 9:29 AM
I would like you to show me where Defense is not in the 18 enumerated powers?
I'd also like you to show me where Medicare, Social Security, and any other entitlement program is.
Jim P. at April 30, 2011 1:37 PM
Maybe I'm bad with reading comprehension, but where did Chang claim that defense wasn't an enumerated power granted in the constitution? I also don't think he made any claim that social security or other entitlement programs were enumerated.
Speaking only for myself now, I sure as hell think there is a lot that can be trimmed from defense. I'm not a fan of our elective wars. I don't see much of what I would call good bang for our buck in these enterprises. I don't think there is a way to win a war against terror. Everyone is losing. Not only the American soldiers dying but the inevitable collateral damage abroad and often consequential radicalization of survivors. It's easy for my to imagine a seething hatred of liberators who destroyed my house, or killed my son or father over some dumb misunderstanding. I don't like these wars (which is not tantamount to saying anyone here does). Shitty things happen in wars.
As to the to the thread topic, yes being on the public tit is likely bad for Indians. I wonder about contractual agreement or enforcement by law of treaties which were bargained for peace back in the day. So many different ones were signed,
broken, signed by unauthorized parties, and much skullduggery was afoot by more than a few government agents and contractors. I don't really have a point to add. I just wonder about the complexity of the deals and how they change over time and intentions do not equal outcomes.
Abersouth at April 30, 2011 3:24 PM
Actually, Defense, VA, Homeland Security and USDA take more than 60 percent of federal income taxes.
The big entitlement programs, such as Medicare and Social Security, and funded through payroll taxes.
The Defense, VA, Homeland Security complex is right on the edge of costing $1 trillion a year. How can that not be a problem?
$1 trillion here, $1 trillion there, and pretty soon you are talking real money.
Imagine--if we eliminated this spending for just 10 years, we would just about pay down our national debt.
BOTU at April 30, 2011 3:51 PM
I've also never met a Mormon I didn't like. Though I have met poor ones.
I'm not against government spending, but it should be spent teaching a man to fish, as the saying goes.
NicoleK at May 3, 2011 9:43 AM
Leave a comment