"Everything I want should be everything I get and the government is the one that should give it to me".

Trying to put a definition on anything that appears to have an innate wrongness or rightness to it is extremely difficult.  Please bear with me.

As I have reviewed activities in this country for the past several decades, a rather disturbing trend seems to be evolving.  The trend is evidenced by a continually pervasive attitude of selfishness.  As this country has grown more and more prosperous, its citizenry appears to be growing more and more selfish in the purest sense of the word.  The prevailing attitude seems to be one of "Everything I want should be everything I get and the government is the one that should give it to me".  I realize that there are a lot of people out there that may not feel they subscribe to that attitude, however, they do not seem to be a majority or, at the very least, they do not make any attempt to argue the point.

This pervasive attitude is promoting abdication of our individual responsibilities to "the government".  All too often everyone appears to think that "the government" should be the ultimate solver of all our "problems" and "needs".  Consequently, we have been giving "the government" more and more power to do those things.

While I can agree that some social and economic safeguards for individuals should would be provided by "government" I would call into question the ultimate mission of those safeguards.  Welfare programs that encourage perpetual pursuit of becoming "eligible" for the program do not meet the real needs of the people allowed to participate in those programs nor do the programs truly benefit American society in general.  

All of the programs provided by government come with inherent and additive costs.  Although he was a famous writer, Robert Heinlein wrote in terms of a couple recurring themes - individual liberty and self-reliance.  He coined a phrase and accompanying acronym that is absolutely axiomatic: "There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch" - AKA: TANSTAAFL.  Accordingly the initial and required future estimated costs of social programs in terms of benefits to individuals is staggering in and of itself.  Even more staggering are the bureaucratic costs of maintaining every such program.  These are debts incurred by the "government" BUT the "government" does not pay for them - we - the "people" pay for it!!  What is worse - it is not just us - it is a debt that is passed to ALL generations to come!

So many questions are never even considered when congress enacts these bills and programs.  Does it benefit ALL the people?  Is it a need or a want? Even if it is a need is it really government's responsibility to provide it?  If it is government's responsibility - is it the Federal government's responsibility or is it state or even local government responsibility.  No matter whose responsibility it is, there must always be recognition of the TANSTAAFL Principle.

Along with inherent and bureaucratic costs there are societal and individual costs to these programs.  Socially the programs have a tendency to create and perpetuate sub-societies or groups.  It is a fact that families dependent on welfare produce descendents with the same tendency.  They become a caste or "problem" that must be dealt with.  They are dehumanized by the very programs designed to "help" them.  In effect they are enslaved.  The programs do not offer any incentive or option to improve the condition of the participant to get off the program and become a productive, self-reliant, respected and responsible member of society.  

I am only beginning to touch on things here - hence the necessity of successive "Parts" some of which are already begun and others that are incubating.  Stay tuned if you are interested.