Sunday News Associate Editor Gil Smart writes in “Back to a poorer future”:
“It’s worth remembering that during the Great Depression private charities like the Red Cross were overwhelmed. This was why the social safety net as we know it was created in the first place. And consider also that as part of the “fiscal cliff” negotiations, lawmakers are considering eliminating tax deductions like the one for charitable giving, which could result in fewer donations to charities at a time nonprofits will need those donations more.
“In short, I think we stand on the cusp of an age of want that most Americans have never experienced firsthand. That age wasn’t turned back when President Obama was re-elected. Just like only President Nixon could go to China, only a Democrat can cut Social Security and Medicare. And with statehouses across the country filled with conservative legislators who take their marching orders from the likes of the American Legislative Exchange Council, the needy will become needier.”
As Jesus said “The poor you will always have with you”, but there is absolutely no reason for an advanced Western nation, even in these difficult times, for the destitute to be with us. It is simply a matter of the values of our society.
The very nature of us homo sapiens sapiens creates a tension between individualism and group action. This leads to the question of whether an affluent society such as the United States should suffer and even extol a tiny group of individuals earning millions each year and who can live the life of sultans or should further tax immense wealth through greater progressive taxation (which is currently at a century low), elimination of tax loop holes, and higher brackets for inheritance taxes for amounts over five and again over twenty million dollars.
If the latter and the added revenue put to good use, there would be no reason why over 10% of the youngsters in the School District of Lancaster would suffer homelessness each day or for anyone to go hungry.
We recently tore down the former Host Resort and later Days Inn on Keller Avenue, across the tracks from the Amtrak Station. It would have made an economical and well designed facility for housing the temporarily homeless and as a ‘soup kitchen’ serving simple but nourishing breakfast and dinners at inexpensive prices.
Or even better, the Brunswick Hotel in the center of the city could be used in the same way.
Of course readers are likely to find such ideas abhorrent. They would argue against the former as placing a facility in Manheim Township to serve Lancaster’s poor (as though suburban homeless hang out in Manheim Township) and the latter as spreading blight to downtown. Moreover, they would argue against encouraging welfare.
Nor do we deny there is much validity to their concerns. Better solutions could be found.
But that is the point being made. We as a society could economically achieve the ends of ending destitution. We simply do not have the will to adopt these or develop better proposals.
The day after Christmas, I once again walked by a man in his fifties with a cup in his hand in front of a popular price restaurant in Halifax, Canada. This time I dropped a dollar coin in his cup and he profusely thanked me. It should have made me feel good. It didn’t. Rather, it made me feel ashamed that we as a society don’t do better.
You’re right about the Host or Brunswick. Better solutions can be found. BUT, one of my teachers once quoted: “Anything worth doing is worth doing poorly.” While counterintuitive, he goes on to explain that we can find better solutions, but more often, we will spend years studying something, not really producing anything meaningful, with plenty of photo ops for the politicians, but people will still be freezing to death on winter streets.
Although it is a little dated, perhaps Gil should read “Losing Ground” (1985) by well known sociologist Charles Murray. What Gil doesn’t understand is it is all about creating a constituency and buying votes, not fixing the problem.
EDITOR: Murray’s views are highly controversial.