When a Nanny State instills benefits so deeply that it becomes too expensive to remove them, it is not hard to see that things have gone too far. That is exactly what is happening in the UK where a plan is being made to remove benefits from those convicted of taking part in the riots. Of course, in a society conditioned to government hand-outs, that plan is considered “controversial” and “draconian”.
The key to the controversy came from a bureaucratic aide when he said: “It depends on how you see benefits: are they a right or a privilege?” Indeed, this is the crux of the matter and it is the polarizing factor both in the U.S. and England. It is a fact of human nature that once a government benefit is received it gets taken for granted, becomes expected, and then is demanded.
Experts are warning that removing benefits could be expensive and hard to achieve. The automated system used in England makes it very hard to accomplish such a seemingly simple task and it is being predicted that it could be more expensive to remove the benefits than to let them remain in place.
This is disturbing. How can it be that expensive benefits can become so implanted in the system that it becomes too expensive to remove them? One of the reasons can be found in a statement by Julian Huppert, a Lib Dem MP, when he said: “If you say to people there is no way for you to get money then that will lead to an increase in theft”. This is a government official treating government give-aways as the “only” way to get money. Is it any wonder that citizens consider it the same way and become dependent on it?
It is all coming to a head in England as the weakened economy no longer allows the cradle-to-grave entitlements that have become ‘expected’. One can hope that those in the U.S. trying to emulate that crumbling system are paying attention. Then, again, they don’t want to “pay” for anything, not even attention.
David J. Hentosh