0 for 7 and Going for Broke: 0 for 4 The War on Poverty

When we talk about failure in our government to run programs, the “War on Poverty” may be the most expensive failure in its attempt to solve another of our countries problems with money. Trillions of dollars and 80 years later, the tax payers have not been told what they are getting for their money or what the measurement for success of this war is. I can assure you that the way things are, the system does nothing more than promote the behaviors that keep the people in their poor surroundings.

Can we really claim that we are winning this war? Every election year we ask for the same amount of money or more and the same problems are still there that were the last year, would you believe them none the less support their war. Liberals seem to forget that when it comes to the military and the amount we spend on war. What do we hear from them? We hear how much we are wasting on the war; at least this government spending is clearly stated as the responsibility of our government. The War on Poverty has no claim to the constitution or justification in taking wealth from one and giving it to another.

Liberals often use the word poverty to describe poor in America when election time comes and it’s time to justify spending in congress. Can we really declare a war on poverty when there is no real poverty in this country? If one has been injured, one does not die because there is no hospital near by or the hospital is only for the dictators of that country. If one is hungry, one does not starve to death because there is no such thing as a food bank or soup kitchen to go to. We cry poverty when people can not afford the latest pair of Nikes, when a person lives in squalor but, has a brand new car. What we call poverty is misplaced priorities by people who have chosen wrong. These impoverished still have Television, phones, cars, and a place to live. Do people in real poverty have these choices, I don't think so.

What the war on poverty has inadvertently done has made a casualty of the nuclear family, thus making it more difficult for people to rise above despair with no one there to raise them but a mother working and a welfare check. If you were engaged in a war that has cost trillions with the same problem each year and no real victory in sight, wouldn't you change your strategy of how you are battling the enemy?

The problem with this war is, it is not to defend anyone’s freedoms but does take away their wealth. Using the general welfare argument is disingenuous at best, because if you read enough of the founder’s opinions on general welfare it is clear that general welfare was not meant for politicians to use as a means of redistribution of wealth. Using the commerce clause is equally disingenuous for the commerce clause intentions were to have the Federal government referee between states where there were disputes in commerce. I am not quite sure how anyone could take the federal right of regulating trade between states has the right by congress to make laws to redistribute wealth. Remember, taxes for roads, police, fire, Military, etc... are not programs used to give towards one persons benefit by way of check. These taxes benefit all.

This war begs to ask the question, how do you justify a war on poverty that has no written goals, no written objectives, little to no oversight on its effectiveness, and no one to hold responsible for success or failure. All there is to justify the trillions of dollars spent in this 80 year war is; a road paved with good intentions, a nation in trillions of dollars in debt, and many liberals that feel good about themselves using others money, all in the name of “The War on Poverty”.

- Micheal Garry