Let’s state the obvious: We are in the midst of a national debate as to the best approach to stop the economic bleeding. Reasonable people disagree as to which tourniquet to apply.
In our stated goal to model respectful dialogue, let’s take a semi-analytical stab at a heart of the disagreement. Let’s put micro and macro theory aside for the moment, looking at a perspective which is used to both validate or invalidate, currently depending on partisan positioning.
The debate is the answer the following question: when does individual, personal financial responsibility begin? As President Obama declared shortly after his election, “We’re going to have to embrace a culture of responsibility.” When does that begin? To whom does it apply?
As a parent, I have certain expectations for my children. (Have fun attempting to argue that you do not.) We want our offspring to perform fairly well academically, hold their own athletically, be confident socially, have a solid faith or belief system, and grow up to marry someone as bright and beautiful as my own. When potholes arise on this supposed pathway to success, we become concerned about the pavement - how experiencing something other than smoothness might derail their future prosperity. Our heart even breaks when they have to experience something - for lack of better words - that is “bad.” From our parent perspective, we wish to protect our children from negative consequences, negative circumstances, or anything that alters that perceived “best.” The true pothole in that theory is that we forget that lifelong learning comes from experiencing the consequences of our own decisions. Such is where conviction, drive, and wisdom are often born.
True, the cognitively disabled in our society need assistance. According to the most recent census, however, that number accounts for somewhere less than approximately 5.6% of the U.S. population.
Hence, those who are in peril because of their lack of cognitive ability should receive some kind of help navigating through difficult, economic circumstances. Those who are in peril because of scenarios completely out of their control should also receive some assistance, although perhaps lesser in degree than a complete, financial crutch - and perhaps from institutions other than the government. But rescuing those who cannot pay their mortgage because their monies instead went to pay for their flat screen TV’s and island vacations, seems as if we believe it is inappropriate to allow the irresponsible to experience negative consequences. Are we more or less compassionate when we save the irresponsible from the results of their own decision-making?
Where does this line of personal financial responsibility begin? Somewhere short of a rescue... somewhere that helps those who cannot help themselves... somewhere that considers those whose circumstances are no fault of their own... but somewhere that does not negate the value of learning from challenging consequences.
AR
Posts
1 comment:
I hear what you are saying here, but I also don't see a lot of compassion for people in difficult situations. I was provided a wonderful college education through scholarships and my parents help, and I consider that a privilege not everyone gets in life. I don't know you too well, but if I had to guess you grew up in a fairly well off family who could provide for you. Did your family ever struggle financially? As I have said more than once, for 13 years I worked with unemployed people who came from all economic brackets. It was an eye opening experience, and guess what, most all of the people I worked directly with did not want to receive unemployment insurance, food stamps, or other forms of governmental assistance. They had limited skills and education, and for them jobs were very limiting. President Obama has also worked in a similar work environment in Chicago, and he can relate to what I am writing and feeling. You and I have been given a big break in life, due in a big part to the families we grew up in. Not everyone is so lucky...
Post a Comment