This little goodie comes to us from the opinion pages of the New York Times.  The argument is essentially that the government doesn’t spend enough money on the truly “less fortunate” … and yes, they do use those words.  Here’s a little bit of what this columnist had to say:  (I’m going to highlight the most common prog talking points so that you won’t miss them) 

President Obama trusts America’s generous and compassionate nature, that our rugged individualism is tempered by a belief that we’re all connected. In his speech on budget reform on April 13, he celebrated "our belief that those who benefited most from our way of life can afford to give back a little bit more."

The president’s faith in Americans’ sense of common purpose is uplifting. But it does not fit the history of American budgetary politics.

I don’t just mean Tea Partiers’ revulsion at the government spending "our money," or Republican Paul Ryan’s Reverse Robin Hood gambit to cut trillions from spending on social programs in order to pay for a tax cut for the rich.

The budgetary policy of the United States has been the least generous in the industrial world for a very long time …

The government doesn’t just spend too little trying to improve the lives of less-fortunate Americans. It spends badly …

First – let’s take the prog-points in order:

“Give Back”  Sometimes I think I’m all alone in this revulsion to the “give back” term  I absolutely hate it with a blinding passion.  People don’t “give back.”  They GIVE.  To say that people are giving back is to say that what they have was given to them instead of earned through hard work and decision making.  I’ll continue to wage this fight alone.

“Reverse Robin Hood”  The libs have been able to make use of this Robin Hood argument for ages without being challenged.  Robin Hood, contrary to popular belief, did not “take from the rich to give to the poor.”  He took from the government.  Robin’s gig was to take the money back from the ruling authorities – the government – and return that money to the people from whom it was seized in the form of – wait for it! – taxes! 

“Pay for a tax cut for the rich”  The rich?  The Republicans fought the tax increases Obama and the progs wanted for people who earn over $200K a year.  That’s rich?  It also included couples earning over $250K.  That would be an accountant and a school teacher.  Rich?  This “pay for tax cuts for the rich” is pure and simple class warfare rhetoric.  They use it because it works.

“Less-fortunate Americans”  Oh how I hate this prog speaking point as well.  The purpose behind the “less fortunate” phraseology is to deliver the message that people in this country who are self-sufficient and who do not rely on government handouts and various welfare programs to sustain themselves, are basically just lucky.  Achieving self-reliance has nothing to do with paying attention to your education, getting a job and sticking to it, and making sensible decisions.  It’s all about luck.  And relying on government handouts has nothing to do with ignoring your education, failing to develop any semblance of a work ethic, and getting involved with drugs and alcohol.  It’s just a matter of bad luck; being “less fortunate.”  And since you were lucky, and those pathetic people weren’t, it’s just fine if the government uses force to even the odds out a bit … right? 

Off the liberal rhetoric and on to the story ………..

It is the not the role of the government to be generous.  It is the government’s role to protect you, your property and your pursuit of life, liberty and happiness.  But to a liberal, it is the government’s role to provide the every want (earned or not) of the poor poor pitiful poor.  Our budget may not be as “generous” as other European welfare states when it comes to cradle-to-grave entitlement benefits, but we as individuals sure are a lot more generous with our money.  It doesn’t take the government to seize the money at the point of a gun to support those in need … all it takes is the American spirit and the ability to earn wealth so that you can spend it or give it or save it as you see fit.  From Forbes:

The Comparative Nonprofit Sector Project at the Johns Hopkins Center for Civil Society Studies compiled a ranking of private philanthropy in 36 countries from 1995 to 2002. Based on giving alone, the U.S. comes first, giving 1.85% of GDP, followed by Israel at 1.34% and Canada at 1.17%.

Among developed nations, those with higher taxes and bigger social safety nets tend to have lower rates of giving. In charitable giving as a percentage of GDP, nations with cradle-to-grave welfare systems rank far down the Johns Hopkins list: Sweden 18th, France 21st, Germany 32nd.

But to liberals who are in love with government, private charity is not an acceptable answer.  The answer must always be government.