The Conservative Argument against Social Welfare - Essay Example

Maojia Li Future of Writing, Essay 3 The Conservative Argument Against Social Welfare: An Analysis and Review Using Mitt Romney’s 2012 Presidential Platform Willard Mitt Romney, as the Republican Party’s candidate for president to the United States in 2012, said that there are 47% of the people who would vote for President Obama no matter what. Romney argues that we should cut the welfare spending because these people need to take personal responsibility instead of depending upon the government for everything. This particular statement, more than any other, helps to ensure that Romney’s defeat in the 2012 presidential election. However, as bold as the statement was and as politically disastrous as it was, it is the understanding of this particular student that it was also largely false. The underlying reason for this has to do with my understanding that the vast majority of this 47% of individuals that Romney indicated were dependent and “lazy” would ultimately love to have an opportunity to provide for themselves; however, they simply do not have the ability to do so. In such a way, the following analysis will be concentric upon describing this problem from a more nuanced perspective and analyzing this broad and differentiated group in terms of the responsibilities that citizens have towards their fellow citizens and the overall impact of providing services to those that are incapable of providing for themselves. Further, to understand the problem, it is necessary to know who comprises this 47%. According to Mitt Romney, the 47% represents those individuals within the United States that are not required to pay federal income taxes. The majority of these are the low-income households; most of which earn less than $ 30,000 a year. Of these, many are willing to work hard and earn a living; however, they cannot find full time employment as a result of the abysmal state of the economy. As such, they are trapped in minimum wage jobs; oftentimes working as part time employees. Not considering income taxes, these individuals can barely feed the families and provide for the basic necessities of life. As can be seen, expecting these very individuals to pay income tax would dis-incentivize engaging with the workforce and created a situation in which these very individuals would be worse off working several part-time jobs then they would be drawing unemployment checks and other forms of government welfare assistance. As can immediately be seen, simply categorizing these individuals as “lazy” is a gross exaggeration and misunderstanding of the labor force and how it works. The fact of the matter is that these individuals are not lazy and have instead chosen to work and find any and all available means to provide for their families. As such, it is not their fault that the job they are unable to procure good jobs and instead have to integrate with a situation in which the government is forced not to draw income tax from their salaries so that these citizens can continue to provide the basic needs of life Further, another group that is unfairly categorized as “lazy” by Mitt Romney’s earlier definition are retired members of the community. Ultimately, large numbers of retirees are protected from tax deduction as a result of their retired status. However, it is unfair to categorize these individuals as “depending upon the government”. The underlying rationale for this has to do with the fact that they are ultimately living upon their retirement savings and/or the Social Security that they have contributed towards their entire adult working life. In addition to this, a large percentage of these retired individuals were responsible for paying high rate of income tax during the years in which they engaged with the workforce. Adding insult to injury, this definition and broad misunderstanding with respect to the overall contribution of retirees helps to underscore the logical disconnect that existed with respect to the information that Mitt Romney presented as verifiable “fact”. A further group of individuals that is negatively stereotyped within these broad definition of “lazy” are those individuals that are disabled and cannot perform work as compared to other individuals that are more able. Interestingly, this particular group of individuals is one of the first groups that Mitt Romney should have considered prior to stating his broad dictum. However, rather than considering the fact that there are tens of thousands of veterans throughout the United States that have missing limbs and other severe life altering conditions as a result of wars that he supported, he instead went on to disparage all such individuals that do not pay income tax as merely gaming the system and desirous of the benefits that the government could give them. Naturally, it goes without saying that the broad majority of disabled persons throughout the United States would willingly, and in a single instance, give up their disabilities if they could as a means of paying income taxes and finding gainful employment. The ignorance in such a statement is as shocking as it is troubling. To assert that individuals that are disabled and do not pay income taxes are somehow desirous of these benefits and happy to game the system is not only a gross over exaggeration, it is patently false and inherently insensitive. As life is challenging for these individuals, it is necessary for them to pay a higher portion of their meager government entitlements as a function of making their life tolerable. This not only includes the high cost of healthcare but any additions or changes to vehicles, homes, or other personal care needs that must be made in order to suit their particular disability. However, rather than merely disparaging the contributions of a large percentage of society, it should also be noted that Romney’s tax plan is highly contradictory and provides for a litany of disparity with respect to how the lower and middle classes are treated as compared to how the upper class is treated. First of all, Romney’s tax plans are contradictory to each other (Cassels 6). He claims that everyone should pay the income tax, especially when the government is running huge deficit. However, he also argues that we should cut the tax rate to benefit tax payers. In fact, his tax plans are going to hurt the low-income group without bringing a lot of benefits to the middle class. In other words, what he really wants to put in place is a policy that only protects rich people. What this effect is a situation in which the highest earning individuals within society are not required to provide the government with the same percentage that lower income individuals are required to provide. Many analysts have referred to this particular plan as something of an inverse Robin Hood tax scheme; one in which the rich benefit as poor individuals within society shoulder the lion’s share of the tax burden. Secondly, Romney tries to confuse people about the concepts of welfare spending and tax deduction. It is true that U.S government runs a large amount of deficit, and a lot of the money flows into the social security and welfare system. However, the abrogation of tax deduction cannot help on reducing the spending at all, instead of that, the amount of spending on welfare may increase since there are going to be more people having the problem with feeding their families (Johnson 1). Another reason that Romney’s statement does not make sense is that most of the states with highest portion of none-income-tax-paying households are Republican states. It turns out that not everyone wants to rely on the welfare; not merely minority Democrats in the more populated cities of the United States. What they really want is to have a full-time job, so that they can work as normal people. They are looking forward about Romney’s policies that may help the economy to recover. A lot of people think that the extra tax they pay are going to feed lazy people or people who made wrong decisions for their lives, but that’s not the truth. As mentioned, most of the people who rely on the welfare system are willing to but cannot work as full-time employees. Some of them are the victim of the recession in 2008. Some of them used to work and contribute to the community, but right now they are getting old. The number of people not paying income tax has been rising since 2008. That is because of the increasing unemployment rate, not the increasing number of lazy people. The distinction is that unemployment describes people who actively search for jobs is unable to find work. Therefore, it is much too assertive to conclude that people who rely on welfare are just lazy to work. Another misunderstanding is that people think paying tax can only benefit the poor people. In fact, only a very small amount of income tax goes toward providing welfare service, but the majority goes to support government operation and national defense. As such, one of the main Republican political arguments that is used year after year has to do with the fact that the government is bankrupting itself based upon the overall number of services that it provides to unfortunate members within society (Goldberg 7). However, the fact of the matter is that the government is slowly bankrupting itself as a result of its foreign policy and continual war. When one analyzes the United States budget on aggregate, these wars impact a far higher level of debt and public tax revenue as compared to all of the social programs put together. Rather than understanding that the safety net which has been in place within the United States for many decades is ultimately to blame for the economic malaise that has been exhibited over the past several years, a more insightful understanding would be contingent upon the fact that the United States is facing a litany of challenges and the ability and desire of the government to allow certain individuals to escape paying income taxes on and already meager salary only serves the best interests of the United States government. The underlying reason for this has to do with the fact that if the tax structure were changed and individuals making less than $30,000 per year were required to pay income taxes, the government would see a vast increase in the overall number of welfare and social safety net applications that would be represented. As individuals came to realize that it was no longer possible for them to earn gainful employment for a satisfying standard of living through working, the entire labor force with slowly collapse. From the information that has thus far been engaged, it is not only clear that Ron these understanding of the base within the United States is inherently flawed, it is also clear and apparent that these individuals which Romney specified as being “takers” are in fact trapped within a system that is no more to their liking than one might expect. No one can actually be successful in life without help from others. It is true that there are some people who use the abusing of the tax and welfare system, but there are more people really need it. Should they become homeless simply because they are disabled? What about the old people who already spend the most of their lives to contribute to the society? We should always keep in mind that all bad things for people who cannot fend for themselves may also happen to us. Further, from an analysis of net Romney stand and the reality of the situation that has been denoted within this research paper, it is clear and apparent that consideration and government programs are established as a means of supporting those that are least able to provide for basic needs within society. Furthermore, one of the basic commonalities that exists between all Democratic and developed societies has to do with the fact that they look after the needs of their most unfortunate. In a world in which Mitt Romney’s policies would have been allowed to take precedence, it is doubtful if the needs of society’s most invisible members would have been promoted. Works Cited Cassels, Tom. "Mitt Romney and Other Republicans Wanted 260-Percent Increase In Food Stamps." New American (08856540) 29.4 (2013): 6. Academic Search Complete. Web. 5 July 2014. Goldberg, Michelle. "Poverty Denialism." Nation 297.21 (2013): 6-8. Academic Search Complete. Web. 5 July 2014. Johnson, Jeremy. "Beyond Retrenchment: Republicans And The Welfare State." Conference Papers -- Midwestern Political Science Association (2009): 1. Academic Search Complete. Web. 5 July 2014. Read More